Business Development

Artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed how legal work is produced. Work that once required hours of legal analysis can now be produced in minutes. That is an extraordinary gain in efficiency, but it also changes where the real value lies. The challenge is no longer producing an answer. It is knowing whether the answer is accurate, complete, and can be trusted. The profession is beginning to respond to that challenge. In June 2026, Rhode Island joined a growing number of jurisdictions issuing guidance on lawyers’ use of artificial intelligence, reinforcing a principle that has always existed: technology can assist the work, but it cannot assume responsibility for it. Lawyers remain accountable for the accuracy of AI-assisted work and for exercising appropriate professional judgment. That guidance reflects a broader shift taking place across the profession. As AI lowers the cost of producing legal work, the competitive advantage increasingly shifts to those who can review, supervise, and exercise sound judgment. That shift has implications well beyond professional responsibility. It is beginning to reshape the economics and talent model of law firms. For decades, law firms were built around a simple reality. High-quality legal work required skilled human effort. If a client needed a research memorandum, a contract review, or a brief, someone had to spend the hours producing it. Firms hired and trained large classes of associates because legal work was inherently labor-intensive. Artificial intelligence changes that equation. Today, a well-crafted prompt can generate a first draft in seconds. Research can be synthesized almost instantly. Contracts can be reviewed in a fraction of the time they once required. The bottleneck has moved. It is no longer creating legal work. It is determining whether that work is accurate. When Wrong Looks Right Lawyers make mistakes and junior associates miss issues. What makes AI different is not that it gets things wrong. It is how convincing those mistakes can look. A bad first-year associate draft usually contains clues: the analysis may be incomplete, the writing may be awkward, or citations may be thin. Something often signals that the work needs attention. AI-generated work frequently removes those signals. The language is polished and the structure is clean. Everything appears finished, which creates a different problem for reviewers. They are no longer reading rough drafts that invite scrutiny. They are reading work that appears complete even when it contains fabricated citations, faulty reasoning, or unsupported conclusions. That matters because errors can travel further before anyone catches them. A flawed analysis can be reused, cited, or incorporated into other work long before someone realizes there is a problem. As a result, the burden shifts upward. Senior lawyers should be spending less time improving work and more time determining whether they can trust it. What Happens Inside Firms The traditional pyramid was designed around work production. Junior lawyers performed large amounts of work. Midlevel lawyers refined it. Partners supervised it. Increasingly, firms need to become review organizations: AI generates an initial draft; a junior lawyer checks sources, citations, and basic reasoning; a midlevel lawyer pushes on assumptions and looks for weaknesses; and a partner decides whether the work is strong enough to put in front of a client or in front of a judge. The work moves through layers of review. The limiting factor is how quickly someone with judgment can determine whether the draft should be trusted. Who Should Firms Hire? Many firms still recruit using signals that made sense in a different environment: prestigious schools, strong credentials, polished communication, and confidence under pressure. Those qualities still matter. They are simply no longer enough. The lawyers who become more valuable in this environment are the ones who keep asking questions after everyone else thinks the answer has been found. They check the citation. They test the assumption. They follow the logic one step further. They are harder to impress with polished work because they care more about whether it survives scrutiny. Some of the traits firms have traditionally rewarded can become liabilities if left unchecked. Confidence can turn into overconfidence. Speed can reduce examination. Fluency can create the appearance of understanding where little exists. The profession has spent decades identifying people who can produce answers. It now needs to become better at identifying people who can challenge them. How Do Lawyers Learn Judgment Now? This presents another obstacle. For generations, junior lawyers developed judgment through repetition. They reviewed documents, drafted motions, researched issues, and received feedback from more experienced lawyers. The process was often inefficient, but it worked. If that work gets absorbed by AI, the next question becomes obvious: How does a lawyer learn judgment if fewer opportunities exist to exercise it? The answer is unlikely to be more policy manuals or additional AI training sessions. Firms will need to create experiences that force lawyers to evaluate, challenge, and defend conclusions. That may involve reviewing intentionally flawed analyses. It may involve exercises built around finding errors rather than producing drafts. It may involve more direct coaching from senior lawyers than many firms currently provide. Whatever the solution, firms cannot assume judgment develops automatically. The apprenticeship model depended on exposure to work. If the work changes, the training model must change with it. Two Different Futures Law firms appear to be moving in two different directions. Some will use AI to deliver work faster and at a lower cost. Others will focus on something different: trust. Their pitch to clients will not be that they can generate an answer quickly. Everyone will be able to do that. Their pitch will be that their answer has been challenged, examined, and defended before it reaches the client. Both approaches can work. The mistake is assuming they require the same people, the same incentives, or the same management systems. They do not. The Real Scarcity The legal industry does not have a shortage of intelligent people. It never has. What it has now is a growing shortage of people willing and able to look at a polished answer and ask, “How do we know this is right?” For decades, firms built their economics around producing legal work. Increasingly, their value will come from validating it. Artificial intelligence can draft a brief. It can summarize a case. It can produce an answer that sounds convincing. But, it cannot accept responsibility for that answer. A lawyer still has to do that. The firms that understand the difference will have a significant advantage over those that do not.

Opening demands and offers set the tone for mediation and often affect the outcome. Here are some suggestions for improving your chances of a favorable settlement. Plaintiff’s Opening Demand The opening demand should be no greater than the full value of your claim if you were to win at trial on absolutely everything. From there, you can negotiate down if there are any weaknesses in your case that would jeopardize a favorable jury verdict or when the costs of continued litigation are likely to exceed what you can afford. Risks vary from case to case. Your concessions during negotiation will depend on the facts of your particular case and the law(s) applicable to it. In some situations, you will have to lower your demand dramatically; in others, you can hold firm. If you really face little risk at trial, there is no reason to discount your case beyond your client’s desire to settle and move on, although the one certainty of trials is uncertainty. Using a simple calculation to formulate your demand, such as doubling the full value of your claim, may seem like a reasonable approach, but there are some drawbacks: You won’t be able to justify that demand. If you are asked to provide the basis for your demand, you must be able to do so. Starting out with an absurdly high demand “to leave room to negotiate” is not a plausible justification. You will lose credibility. If you start with a demand that is higher than the maximum amount you could possibly be awarded at trial, the defense team may conclude that you are not a competent evaluator. When you later address another issue (your chances of winning on causation, for example), the defense has likely already determined that you are an exaggerator with an unrealistic view of your case. If you want to maintain credibility with the defense, try saying something like this: “I believe the full value of my case if I win on everything is $250,000. Of course, I may not win on everything, so let’s talk.” You will telegraph your target. If you always ask for three times what you want, word will spread. Soon enough, your demand for $300,000 will be interpreted as a demand for $100,000. Your negotiations should be based on the specific facts of your case, not a predictable calculation that can easily be recognized by the defense. You will invite similarly unrealistic offers. If you’ve ever been to a mediation, you know the routine: The plaintiff asks for the moon, and the defense offers $250. When challenged, the defense says, “Of course our offer is low. We’ll get realistic, but only when plaintiff returns from the stratosphere.”[1] The plaintiff then becomes outraged at such an insulting offer and, in response, drops their demand by $250. The defense ups their offer to $500. Everyone arrived at the mediation hopeful and optimistic, but now the mood is gloomy and sullen, and resentment is building. Time has been wasted and trust has diminished. By contrast, a realistic opening demand usually engenders a reasonable opening offer. This saves time and builds momentum toward resolution. There is no upside to an unrealistic demand. Anchoring, which is starting high to shift the range of negotiations upward, works well when a valuation is not easily calculable. Insurers, though, have immense databases of cases and results. Accurately or otherwise, your claim has already been evaluated, perhaps by a distant claims committee, and any additional authority will likely be modest. Your unrealistically high demand is not likely to shift the insurer’s evaluation; in fact, it may move the needle in the wrong direction (see No. 2 above). As many mediators will tell you, the goal is to push the insurer to its top dollar and then decide whether to settle or go to trial. There is no risk that you are leaving money on the table by starting with a rational demand; the insurer was never going to pay two or three times your own estimate of your best possible result at trial. Defendant’s Opening Offer Some of the rules regarding a plaintiff’s opening demand apply to a defendant’s opening offer. A reasonable opening offer sets the tone for a productive mediation by building trust, optimism and momentum. A ridiculously low offer will usually result in little or no movement from the plaintiff. Spending hours just to get into a realistic settlement range wastes time and money. In some ways, though, the defendant’s strategy must be different. As a practical matter, the defense cannot start with its best possible outcome at trial. An opening offer of “We will pay nothing and you will reimburse us for all of our costs and expert fees” might work in the movies,[2] but not in real life. Put some money on the table and justify your calculation. As with plaintiff’s demand, you must be able to explain the reasoning behind your offer: “We think the case is worth $100,000, and we think we have an 80% chance of winning on causation. Plus, a comparative negligence finding is likely. Therefore, our opening offer is $20,000.” Any plausible explanation is fine, but saying “The plaintiff’s demand is too high, so our offer is very low” sounds shallow and petty. Of course, you don’t have to offer anything at all, but then why did you agree to mediation? Nobody will make you split the difference between the opening demand and the opening offer. As negotiations wear on, parties naturally become focused on the midpoint between their positions. Invariably, when the numbers get close, someone is going to suggest that the parties split the difference. It’s theoretically possible that the opening demand and the first offer are so close that the parties laugh, split the difference and go home. But this almost never happens. Make a reasonable opening offer and worry later about the midpoint. Make your offer before the mediation. Commonly, an insured defendant won’t make an offer until mediation. Instead, they may serve a brief that says, in effect, “We didn’t do anything wrong, and plaintiff wasn’t hurt, so we owe nothing. But we will participate in good faith.” This is ineffective. Most personal injury plaintiffs are not experienced litigators and need time to grasp the realities of litigation. Early offers encourage plaintiffs to discuss and consider realistic settlement ranges in advance of the hearing, which in turn leads to more productive (and efficient) negotiations. Despite disagreeing on the merits, most mediation participants have a common goal: achieving a mutually satisfactory resolution that avoids the costs and risks of continued litigation. To increase the odds of reaching this goal, start with reasonable, defensible and timely opening demands and offers.  [1] Technically, the moon is far above the stratosphere, but most lawyers are not meteorologists and tend to use atmospheric terms inaccurately. [2] Michael Corleone in The Godfather Part II makes a dramatic point by declaring during negotiations with a corrupt politician, “My offer is this: nothing.” But in real life, a more conciliatory approach is necessary. Also, Michael Corleone died isolated and unhappy after most of his family was killed by gang violence. Find a better role model.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Procedure J.O. v. Super. Ct. (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 1488791: the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision summarily denying writ relief after the trial court denied petitioner’s objection to County Counsel’s alleged blanket Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 challenges to Judge Guy Castillo. The trial court denied the objection, concluding it was barred under Solberg v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 182 (Solberg) and the Court of Appeal summarily denied writ relief. The California Supreme Court overruled Solberg to the extent it immunized blanket abuses of section 170.6 from as-applied separation of powers challenges, holding that if a party makes a prima facie showing of bad faith blanket challenges, a court may look behind the section 170.6 affidavit and inquire into the legitimacy of the prejudice claim, and remanded to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings. Practitioner Takeaways: (1) Courts may now entertain separation of powers objections to alleged blanket section 170.6 challenges—the Solberg shield is gone; (2) a party opposing a section 170.6 motion must timely object and establish a prima facie case of bad faith blanket challenges using a Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 style burden-shifting framework; (3) the separation of powers problem arises from the legislative scheme itself, meaning blanket abuses by any party—not just executive branch actors—may be challenged; and (4) the Legislature retains authority to amend section 170.6, and further statutory reform addressing blanket challenges remains a live possibility. (May 28, 2026.) CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Employment Smith v. The Superior Court of Alameda County (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 1876096: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and granted a writ petition vacating the trial court’s order. Plaintiffs, who were former class members in Vaughn, et al. v. Tesla, Inc. (Super. Court Alameda County, 2017, No. RG17882082) (Vaughn), alleged, in five related complaints filed by 440 Tesla factory workers, that defendant Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) maintained a pattern and practice of racial discrimination and harassment at its factory and systematically failed to investigate or address it, in violation of FEHA. The trial court found misjoinder and ordered that, in each of five related complaints filed by 440 former Tesla factory workers, all plaintiffs except the first-named must be dismissed and refiled individually. The Court of Appeal disagreed and held the claims were properly joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 378 because they arose from a common corporate policy or practice, and that section 379.5 did not authorize the trial court to dismiss properly joined plaintiffs based on manageability, judicial economy, or filing-fee concerns. Practitioner Takeaways: Section 378 joinder is construed liberally—a defendant’s common policy or practice causing harm to plaintiffs at different times/locations can satisfy the “same transaction or occurrence” test without identical individual facts. Manageability, judicial economy, and filing-fee shortfalls are not grounds for misjoinder under section 378; courts may only address them post-joinder (e.g., severed trials under section 379.5), and broader limits must come from the Legislature. A related case’s class-decertification findings don’t bind differently-represented individual plaintiffs from establishing proper joinder in follow-on suits. Federal Rule 21 has no California counterpart, so federal mass-joinder dismissals under Rule 21 carry little weight in section 378/379.5 analysis. (C.A. 1st, June 30, 2026.)

The legal profession has spent decades monetizing time, process, and technical execution. But as artificial intelligence rapidly transforms how legal work is performed, law firms are entering a new era, one where the most valuable offerings may no longer be rooted in how long something takes, but in the quality of judgment, insight, and strategic guidance delivered along the way. That shift does not signal the decline of the legal profession. In many ways, it represents an opportunity for firms to elevate the very capabilities clients have always valued most but firms have not always clearly articulated. AI can draft documents, summarize information, and accelerate research at extraordinary speed. What it cannot do, at least not in the way clients truly need, is understand organizational dynamics, stakeholder sensitivities, business risk tolerance, leadership priorities, or the practical realities shaping complex decisions. Clients are not simply hiring lawyers to produce legal work product. They are hiring trusted advisors to help them navigate uncertainty with confidence. That distinction matters. The Shift from Monetizing Time to Monetizing Judgment The conversation surrounding AI in law firms often centers on efficiency, automation, and productivity. While those are certainly important considerations, they may not represent the most significant long-term impact. The larger challenge is economic. What happens when technology materially compresses the time required to complete work inside a profession that still largely monetizes time? Clients are increasingly less focused on how many hours something took and more focused on whether their lawyers helped them solve a meaningful business problem, mitigate risk, or make a better decision. As a result, firms are being pushed to rethink not only pricing models, but also how they define and communicate value. Kristen Bateman Leis, Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer at Parker Poe, believes the profession is moving toward a more human-centered definition of value. “I think firms need to move from monetizing effort to monetizing judgment, outcomes, and strategic value,” she explains. “Clients do not necessarily expect discounts because firms use AI. They expect efficiency to benefit them too through predictability, clearer communication, fewer surprises, and better client service.” That perspective reflects an important shift in client expectations. Efficiency alone is no longer differentiating. Increasingly, it is simply expected. The Rise of “Business Translation” One of the more interesting developments AI may accelerate is the growing importance of what Bateman Leis describes as “business translation.” “The most effective lawyers will not simply provide legal analysis,” she says. “They will help clients understand what that analysis means operationally, financially, reputationally, and strategically.” This may become one of the defining capabilities of the next generation of successful lawyers. Legal knowledge remains essential, but technical excellence alone is becoming the baseline rather than the differentiator. The firms that stand apart will likely be those that can connect legal advice to business outcomes in ways that are practical, strategic, and actionable. In many respects, AI may push the profession back toward its original counselor role, where perspective, judgment, and trusted guidance become the true premium offering. That also creates a tremendous opportunity for law firms willing to invest in stronger client listening strategies. Firms with robust client feedback programs and meaningful interview processes are often far more attuned to how expectations are evolving. They understand that value is not universally defined by the firm; it is defined individually by the client. For some clients, value means speed. For others, it means responsiveness, predictability, strategic thinking, industry depth, or simply confidence that their lawyer understands the pressures facing their business. Ultimately, value is experienced through service. Developing Lawyers for a Different Future AI will not eliminate the need for lawyers. But it will likely reshape how lawyers are developed, trained, and evaluated. Bateman Leis notes that younger lawyers may be particularly well positioned for this transition because they are often less attached to traditional assumptions around hierarchy, productivity, and the billable hour. “Many are more comfortable viewing AI as part of an integrated workflow rather than a threat to professional identity,” she says. “That perspective may become a competitive advantage for firms willing to rethink how legal services are delivered and how lawyers create value.” That evolution will require firms to invest differently in talent development. Technical skills will always matter, but firms may need to place greater emphasis on capabilities AI cannot easily replicate: executive communication, relationship management, strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, industry fluency, and sound judgment developed through experience. Perhaps most importantly, firms will need to lead rather than trail when it comes to technology adoption and client engagement. Clients increasingly expect their outside counsel to demonstrate not only awareness of emerging tools, but also intentionality in how those tools are being leveraged to improve service delivery, efficiency, and outcomes. Practical Steps Firms Can Take Now While the pace of change can feel overwhelming, firms do not need to reinvent themselves overnight. But they do need to start making intentional investments in the future. A few practical areas of focus include: Strengthening client feedback loops to better understand evolving expectations Training lawyers to communicate business impact, not just legal analysis Investing in AI literacy across the firm, not just within innovation teams Exploring pricing models tied more closely to outcomes and strategic value Developing lawyers’ relationship and advisory skills earlier in their careers Communicating more proactively about how technology benefits the client experience  Clients are unlikely to pay a premium for work that technology can perform faster, cheaper, and at scale. They will, however, continue paying for judgment, perspective, and advisors who understand the business consequences behind the legal issue. That may be uncomfortable for some firms. But it is also the opportunity.

You see this mistake across law firm websites. Even the “good” ones. The homepage looks sharp. The design is modern. The messaging feels confident. At a glance, the firm appears sophisticated and well put together. Then a visitor clicks deeper into the site. They land on a practice page that feels thin or outdated. A bio that sounds nothing like the one before it. Different voices, formats, and levels of detail from page to page. The overall experience suddenly feels less cohesive. This is what I call the Homepage Halo . The term borrows from the halo effect in psychology: when a strong first impression leads us to assume quality everywhere else. In the context of law firm websites, a polished homepage creates the expectation that the rest of the site will deliver the same level of clarity, cohesion, and professionalism. When it doesn’t, the halo fades, and trust fades with it. The issue isn’t that the homepage is misleading. It’s that the rest of the site isn’t keeping up, leaving the homepage to do too much work on its own. Why This Happens So Often Lazy website redesigns focus heavily on the homepage because it’s visible, emotional, and easier to align around. It’s where firms invest the most time, energy, and debate. But the homepage is rarely where prospective clients make their final judgment. They click into attorney bios. They read practice descriptions. They look for signals that the firm is thoughtful, aligned, and credible. Those deeper pages make up the majority of the website experience. And in many firms, they’ve evolved over time, written by different people, updated in different phases, and rarely governed by a consistent framework. If this is not addressed during the website redesign, the result is a patchwork of content that feels uneven, even when the homepage itself is polished. Visitors rarely articulate the problem directly. They don’t say, “This firm lacks content consistency.” They simply feel that something is off. In professional services, where trust and credibility matter deeply, that feeling matters. Consistency Is Brand (Even When You Don’t Call It That) When people think about branding, they often focus on visual elements: logos, color palettes, typography. These are crucial to a cohesive website, but branding does not stop there. For law firms, branding also shows up in the details: How attorney bios are structured How practice areas are explained Whether the tone speaks to clients or primarily to other lawyers Whether proof points appear consistently across the site When these elements vary significantly from page to page, the experience begins to feel fragmented. Consistency doesn’t mean every page should sound identical. Lawyers should still have individual voices and personalities. Practice pages can still be tailored to different target audiences. But the framework around those voices should feel intentional and cohesive. That cohesion makes the user experience more intuitive and signals professionalism and reliability to prospective clients. Where the Breakdown Usually Happens This disconnect between the homepage and the rest of the site tends to follow the same course. Three patterns appear frequently. Inconsistent Voice Some bios read like formal résumés, while others feel more conversational. Practice descriptions may shift between technical language and marketing language depending on who wrote them. Individually, none of these approaches are wrong. But when they appear side by side, the experience begins to feel uneven. Uneven Structure Attorney profiles and practice pages often vary dramatically in length, organization, and depth. One page may clearly explain how the firm approaches a client’s problem, while another lists credentials with little context. For visitors comparing attorneys or services, this inconsistency can make the site feel less cohesive than the firm itself actually is. Missing Proof Points Strong professional services websites reinforce credibility consistently across the site. When achievements, thought leadership, or notable work appear on some pages but not others, the firm’s strengths become harder for visitors to quickly recognize. Looking Beyond the Homepage Fixing the Homepage Halo doesn’t always require a complete website rebuild. More often, it requires stepping back and looking at the site as a whole. Law firm websites tend to grow organically over time, with pages added or updated in response to immediate needs. Without a clear structure guiding those changes, inconsistencies naturally emerge. Addressing the issue often begins with evaluating the firm’s marketing objectives as informed by the broader goals of the firm. Then you can evaluate how the site supports these goals and functions as a unified experience: how attorney bios are presented, how practice areas are described, and whether the tone and depth of information feel aligned across pages. When those elements begin to work together, the website starts to feel less like a collection of individual pages and more like a coherent reflection of the firm itself. Your Website Should Fulfill The Promise of the Homepage A law firm website needs to feel intentional to be effective. When the experience beyond the homepage reflects the same professionalism and confidence that the homepage promises, the site becomes more than a digital brochure. It becomes an extension of the firm’s reputation. And that’s where the real value lies.

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Attorney Fees Amezcua v. The Superior Court of San Diego County (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 1141733: The Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of mandate that reversed in part the trial court’s order conditionally granting plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her first amended complaint (in response to a demurrer) in her wrongful termination and wage and hour action, conditioned upon the payment by plaintiff of $25,000 in attorney fees to defendant (and real party in interest Massage Envy Franchising, LLC). The trial court relied sua sponte on Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a), finding that plaintiff had failed to adequately explain why she had not earlier amended her complaint to add substantive allegations against defendant and had acted contrary to the purpose of the meet-and-confer requirements. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and granted plaintiff’s writ petition and directed the trial court to strike the attorney fee payment condition from its order, holding that section 473 does not authorize fee-shifting as a condition of leave to amend and that, under the American rule codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, courts may only award attorney fees pursuant to specific statutory authority or party agreement—neither of which was present here—and that the statutes permitting fee sanctions (sections 128.5 and 128.7) were not invoked and their procedural safeguards were not followed. (C.A. 4th, April 24, 2026.) Guinnane Construction Co., Inc. v. Chess (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 836484: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees incurred in prosecuting a “tort of another” action against individual tortfeasors after it had already been awarded attorney fees in the underlying specific performance action against the defendants. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that attorney fees incurred in an action against the tortfeasor to recover fees awarded under the underlying “tort of another doctrine” do not fall within any recognized exception to the general rule that each party must bear their own legal fees. (C.A. 1st, March 26, 2026.) Employment Monroe v. Cal. Public Employees’ Retirement System (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 458134: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandate seeking to overturn defendant’s denial of his disability retirement application. While under investigation for on-duty misconduct, plaintiff (a parole agent) applied for service retirement, pending a claim for disability retirement. His application was accepted, and he was thereafter found ineligible for a disability retirement because his departure was not related to a disability and occurred while he was under investigation for misconduct. Defendant’s CalPERS Board of Administration affirmed the denial because a prerequisite for a disability retirement was lacking: the right to return to service. The trial court denied plaintiff’s writ petition, agreeing that plaintiff was barred from applying for disability retirement benefits after he service retired while under investigation for on-duty misconduct. The Court of Appeal held that plaintiff’s service retirement while under investigation for misconduct constituted a complete severance of the employer-employee relationship, eliminating the necessary prerequisite for disability retirement—the right to potential reinstatement—and therefore rendered him ineligible for disability retirement benefits regardless of whether his departure was characterized as a service retirement or a termination for cause. (C.A. 2nd, filed February 28, 2026, published March 11, 2026.)

Most law firms are trying to apply a last-click attribution framework to a business development cycle that doesn’t work that way. A corporate prospect doesn’t see a blog post, click a CTA, and retain the firm the same afternoon. They encounter the firm’s name in a search result, read an attorney’s byline in a trade publication months later, hear the firm mentioned by a peer at a conference, and then reach out—through a referral. Marketing touched every stage of that journey. The referral gets all the credit. Only 18% of law firms use multi-touch attribution to fully understand campaign performance, and 22% report difficulty measuring marketing results at all. The instinct is to assume those firms need better technology—a more sophisticated CRM, call tracking software, tighter UTM parameters. But the tools aren’t the problem. The model is. Until firms stop trying to force a direct-response attribution model onto a relationship-driven BD cycle, this conversation will keep stalling. Why Traditional Attribution Models Fail in Legal The attribution models most firms have borrowed—from e-commerce, from B2B SaaS, from digital agency playbooks—were built for shorter sales cycles with cleaner conversion paths. They don’t translate to the way law firms develop business. The Long Conversion Window Corporate and transactional BD cycles frequently run 6–18 months (or more) from first touchpoint to retained engagement. A prospect may interact with your firm’s content, reputation, and digital presence across dozens of touchpoints before a conversation ever happens, and most analytics platforms lose that thread long before the handshake. By the time a new client signs, the content that sparked the initial awareness may be over a year old and invisible to standard reporting. The “We Get All Our Business From Referrals” Myth In most firms, partners credit referrals for new business. That’s not wrong. But it is incomplete. The referral itself was almost always influenced by marketing: the referring attorney saw the firm’s thought leadership and remembered the name; the prospective client Googled the firm after hearing the recommendation and found authoritative practice pages; the firm’s visibility in AI search results reinforced the suggestion at exactly the right moment. Marketing doesn’t replace referrals. Rather, it activates and validates them. But last-touch attribution gives the referral 100% of the credit and marketing 0%. Over time, this creates a destructive cycle: marketing can’t demonstrate value, budgets get cut, and the visibility that was supporting BD in ways no one was measuring disappears. The Multi-Stakeholder Problem Law firm buying decisions, especially when considering mid-size and large firms, typically involve multiple decision-makers. A general counsel, a deputy GC, an outside counsel guidelines committee. Each may interact with different marketing touchpoints at different times. Single-user tracking models can’t capture this. A Google Analytics session belongs to one person; a BD relationship belongs to an organization. A Better Framework: Measuring Marketing Influence, Not Marketing Credit The shift in framing matters: stop trying to give marketing “credit” for wins. Start building a framework that measures marketing’s influence across the full BD journey. The question isn’t “which client came from marketing?” The question is “what percentage of our new matters had marketing touchpoints somewhere in the BD journey?” That question is answerable—and the answer is persuasive. Here’s a four-layer framework for getting there. Layer 1: Visibility Metrics (Did They Find Us?) Visibility metrics track whether marketing is creating the conditions for discovery: Organic search rankings AI citation presence in tools like ChatGPT and Perplexity Share of voice in target practice areas Branded search volume trends These don’t prove revenue in isolation, but they prove that the firm is showing up in the places prospects and referral sources look when they’re evaluating options, which is the prerequisite for everything else. Set a baseline and track trends over time. If branded search volume increases 30% over six months while BD activity also rises, that’s a meaningful correlation even without direct attribution. It tells a story about momentum. Layer 2: Engagement Metrics (Did They Validate Us?) This is the validation layer, i.e. what happens after someone hears about the firm. Track attorney bio page views by practice area, practice page engagement depth, content downloads, newsletter signups, and repeat visits from target accounts or organizations. When a prospect receives a referral, their next step is almost always to research the firm digitally. Your website and digital presence become the validation step. If engagement metrics spike in the same periods that BD conversations are opening, marketing is doing its job, even if the prospect didn’t come in through marketing monitored-entry points. Layer 3: Pipeline Correlation (Did Marketing Touch the BD Opportunity?) This layer requires integration between marketing data and BD or CRM data, and it’s where most firms drop the ball. The goal is to match new BD opportunities against prior marketing touchpoints: Did anyone from that organization visit your site in the 90 days before the conversation started? Did the referring source engage with your content? Does the prospect’s company appear in your account-based marketing or intent data? You don’t need perfect attribution to make this work. Even directional correlation changes the conversation with partnership: “75% of our new matters in Q3 came from organizations that had prior digital touchpoints with our firm” is a statement that holds up in a budget discussion. For more on building your tracking infrastructure to support this kind of analysis, our post on top lead tracking systems for law firms covers the technical foundations. Layer 4: Revenue Alignment (What’s the Business Impact?) Work backward from retained matters: what marketing activities were active during the BD cycle? Which practice areas saw both increased marketing investment and increased new business in the same period? Where is there consistent correlation across multiple quarters? Return on Objective (ROO) is particularly valuable here. Rather than attempting to prove direct causation—which the data rarely supports cleanly—you define specific marketing objectives tied to BD outcomes and measure achievement against those objectives. Leveraging ROO will allow your law firm to identify approximate estimates as to what you are spending on marketing functions and what the results of those functions have generated for your firm in terms of revenue on a monthly basis. As we’ve covered in our overview of ROO for law firms, this approach is more honest and more persuasive than forcing an ROI calculation that the data can’t support. Firms doing this well can document marketing influence on 40–60% of new business—not marketing credit for those wins, but verifiable marketing touchpoints somewhere in the BD journey. Making This Work in Practice Getting from the framework to actual reporting requires some operational groundwork. Start With CRM Hygiene If your BD team isn’t logging how prospects first heard about the firm—or what they looked at before reaching out—no attribution model will fix that gap. Add a “how did you hear about us?” intake field that includes digital options (found us through search, read an article, saw us cited in an AI answer), and train your intake team to probe beyond “referral” as an answer. Referrals have sources too. Integrate Your Analytics and CRM Connect Google Analytics, a reverse IP lookup/buyer intent tool (like Lead Forensics, ZoomInfo, or HubSpot), call tracking (CallRail or similar), and your CRM so you can identify which organizations are visiting your site and map that against BD activity. This doesn’t require enterprise-level technology—it requires commitment to doing it consistently. Our post on why law firm marketers should care about analytics lays out the foundational setup. Report in Layers, Not Single Numbers Present partnership with the four-layer framework above. Lead with visibility trends, show engagement patterns around active BD opportunities, and correlate marketing investment with practice-area growth over time. This is both more honest and more defensible than a single ROI figure—and it reflects the reality of how legal BD actually works. For more on why this matters structurally, see our piece on tracking law firm marketing ROI. Accept Imperfect Data as the Goal, Not the Obstacle The aim isn’t to prove that a specific blog post generated a specific client. The aim is to demonstrate that marketing is consistently creating the conditions for BD success—and that reducing that investment would remove the air support that makes BD work. The managing partners asking, “What did we get for our marketing spend?” deserve a better answer than a traffic report. They also deserve a better answer than a fabricated ROI number that collapses under scrutiny. The four-layer influence framework gives marketing leaders the language and the data to have an honest, strategic conversation—one that positions marketing not as a cost center fighting for budget, but as the infrastructure that makes business development possible. 

Across firms, one pattern is unmistakable: the lawyers who excel at business development aren’t “doing BD” at all. They’re simply serving clients—but with a level of curiosity, follow-through, and commercial awareness that naturally generates new work. Meanwhile, many attorneys still experience BD as a separate, uncomfortable, time-consuming activity that sits outside their legal practice. The divide is unnecessary, and increasingly, it’s holding you back. What Are We Seeing in Law Firms Now? In nearly every firm, from Am Law 100 to boutique, leaders are trying to solve the same problem: attorneys logically understand the importance of business development, but they don’t feel connected to it. They see business development as something they “should” do, not something that flows from the work they’re already doing. Three real-world dynamics are driving this: Client expectations have shifted. Clients want proactive, anticipatory guidance, not just answers to the questions they asked today. Firms are leaner. Marketing and BD teams are stretched thin, so attorneys need to play a more active role in driving relationship growth. Competition is fierce. Firms that treat BD as an integral part of client service are winning market share from those that treat it as an extracurricular activity. The firms making the most progress reframe business development not as outreach, selling, or networking, but as an extension of excellent lawyering. How Do Top Lawyers Consistently Get This Right? They treat curiosity as a client-service skill, not a BD tactic. I once worked with a litigation partner who consistently brought in work without the traditional “pitching” we all think of when talking about business development. His secret? He ended every client call with one question: “What’s keeping you up at night that we haven’t talked about yet?” He framed it as part of his duty to understand the client’s risk landscape, not as a cross-sell attempt. Clients felt heard, and new matters emerged naturally. This pattern shows up across practices: the best BD performers are simply the best at asking thoughtful, forward-looking questions. They connect dots across the firm as a form of client protection. A regulatory lawyer at a global firm described her approach this way: “If I see a risk my client hasn’t spotted yet, I consider it part of my job to bring in the right colleague.” She doesn’t view this as “cross-selling.” She views it as safeguarding the client. The result? She’s become one of the firm’s strongest internal connectors. And her clients rely on her as a gateway to the firm’s full capabilities. They follow up like a trusted advisor, not a salesperson. A partner shared that he sends short, personalized follow-ups after major industry developments. Not alerts. Not memos. Just a few lines tailored to the client’s business. He said, “It’s not BD. It’s being a good lawyer.” What Are Some Practical Shifts That Can Make Business Development Feel Like Client Service? Shift 1: Reframe business development as risk management and client protection. When BD is framed as “selling,” it is easy for lawyers to resist. When it’s positioned as helping clients anticipate issues, it is more easily embraced. Encourage attorneys to ask one forward-looking question in every client conversation. Shift 2: Build micro-BD habits into existing workflows. Small actions compound. Instead of asking lawyers to “make time for BD,” embed it into what they already do: Add one strategic question to every client call Send one personalized follow-up per week Share one internal introduction per month. Shift 3: Equip lawyers with client-ready insights, not marketing materials. Give attorneys short, digestible talking points tied to client priorities—not long memos or pitch decks. When lawyers feel confident in the substance, they naturally bring it into conversations. Shift 4: Celebrate behaviors, not just outcomes. Firms often reward originations but rarely recognize the business development behaviors that lead to them. Highlight attorneys who demonstrate traits that make business development feel like service. Curiosity, collaboration, and proactive communication. Shift 5: Train lawyers to listen for “moments of opportunity.” Most business development opportunities arise in passing comments: “We are expanding into a new market…” “I am worried about upcoming regulations…” “We are short-staffed on compliance…” Teaching lawyers to spot these signals transforms everyday conversations into relationship-building moments. The Bottom Line When lawyers see business development as something separate, they avoid it. When they see it as an extension of excellent client service, they excel at it. The firms that win in the next decade will be the ones that stop treating BD as a parallel track and start treating it as part of the craft of lawyering itself.

Traditional advertising has given way to a continuous stream of digital activity across websites, search engines, social media, and increasingly, AI-driven interfaces. This shift has expanded both reach and exposure. Marketing content is now persistent, highly visible, and easily scrutinized. What a law firm publishes can be reviewed by regulators, competitors, and the public at any time, often long after it first appears. Regulators, including state bar associations, are paying closer attention to how legal services are presented. At the same time, consumers and competitors are more willing to challenge claims that appear misleading or incomplete. Oversight now comes from multiple directions, including state bar disciplinary authorities, state Attorneys General in cases involving consumer protection, and private litigants under statutes such as the Lanham Act. Today, marketing operates within a regulatory framework that carries direct implications for compliance, reputation, and professional liability. What “Marketing Compliance” Actually Means for Law Firms Marketing compliance for law firms is grounded in professional conduct rules. The most relevant starting point is ABA Model Rule 7.1, which governs communications concerning a lawyer’s services. Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading communications. The definition of misleading is broader than it may appear. A communication may fall short of compliance if it creates unjustified expectations, omits material information, or leads a reasonable person to form an inaccurate impression. This interpretation has been reinforced through commentary to the Model Rules and through state-level enforcement decisions. State-level variation introduces additional complexity. The ABA Model Rules provide a framework, but each state adopts and enforces its own version. These differences affect disclosure requirements, the use of testimonials, claims of specialization, and whether marketing content must be filed or reviewed in advance. Marketing exposure also extends beyond professional conduct rules. State Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices laws allow regulators and, in some cases, consumers to challenge misleading marketing. The Lanham Act allows competitors to bring claims for false advertising that causes commercial harm. The scope of marketing itself has expanded. Compliance expectations now apply across: Websites and landing pages Social media content Third-party platforms and directories Reviews and testimonials AI-driven tools, including chatbots The American Bar Association has noted that the rapid growth of digital communication has placed pressure on traditional approaches to regulating lawyer advertising, requiring ongoing interpretation in modern contexts. The Fragmented Regulatory Landscape and Why It is Risky The regulatory environment governing law firm marketing is fragmented and evolving quickly. U.S. state governments are increasingly active in regulating digital practices, particularly in areas such as data privacy, online advertising, and consumer protection. Dozens of states have introduced or enacted laws in recent years that directly or indirectly affect how firms market their services. In 2024 alone, more than 300 social media-related bills were introduced across 42 states. Enforcement approaches differ significantly across jurisdictions. Requirements vary across several dimensions: Disclosure rules Recordkeeping expectations Approval workflows Enforcement intensity Some states, including California and New York, are widely recognized for more assertive regulatory approaches. Others apply less intensive oversight. This environment continues to evolve. Research from Thomson Reuters and KPMG indicates that state-level regulation is expanding and diverging. Some jurisdictions are increasing enforcement activity and introducing more detailed requirements, while others remain closer to federal baselines. This has resulted in a widening gap between states. For law firms operating across multiple jurisdictions, this creates a practical challenge. Compliance often needs to align with the most restrictive applicable standard rather than a single consistent rule set. Where Law Firms are Getting Into Trouble Today The rules governing lawyer advertising are well established. Current enforcement focuses on how those rules are applied in modern marketing environments. Several recurring areas of risk stand out. Results-based advertising continues to draw scrutiny. Statements that highlight large settlements or verdicts can create unjustified expectations if they are not properly contextualized. Disclaimers are frequently required, and their placement and clarity influence how regulators assess compliance. Superlatives and comparative claims require a clear basis. Terms such as “best” or “top” may be considered misleading if they cannot be objectively substantiated or if the underlying criteria are not disclosed. Testimonials and reviews present additional challenges. They can create misleading impressions about likely outcomes if they lack appropriate context. Firms are responsible for how testimonials are presented, even when they appear on third-party platforms. Fee-related messaging must be precise. Phrases such as “no win, no fee” need to clearly explain any conditions, limitations, or exceptions. Third-party marketing introduces further exposure. Law firms remain accountable for marketing conducted on their behalf, including lead generation platforms, affiliates, and directory listings. A lack of oversight in these areas is a common source of disciplinary action. The Digital Shift and Why Risk Is Increasing The transition to digital marketing has introduced a different level of operational complexity. Instead of discrete campaigns with defined timelines, firms manage a continuous flow of content across multiple platforms and formats. Content is created, updated, and distributed at scale. It often involves internal teams, external vendors, and automated systems. Maintaining consistency across these channels becomes increasingly difficult as volume grows and messaging evolves. The use of automation, AI-generated content, and chatbots adds further complexity. These tools can generate variations in language that have not been formally reviewed or surface outdated information that no longer reflects current positioning or regulatory expectations. Recent developments in the legal sector illustrate how quickly this risk can materialize. Courts have sanctioned lawyers for submitting filings that relied on AI-generated case law that did not exist, highlighting how unverified outputs can pass through professional workflows without detection. In parallel, regulators are responding to instances where AI chatbots have presented themselves as authoritative sources of legal guidance while producing inaccurate or misleading information. In some cases, this has resulted in users acting on incorrect advice, raising questions about responsibility, supervision, and disclosure. These examples are not marketing-specific, but they demonstrate a broader pattern. AI-generated content can appear credible and authoritative while introducing errors that are difficult to identify without structured oversight. When applied to marketing, the same risks extend to website copy, social media posts, chatbot interactions, and automated responses at scale. Digital content also leaves a durable record. It can be indexed, archived, and retrieved with ease. This increases the likelihood that issues will be identified during routine oversight, audits, or investigations. Content that was created quickly or without full review can remain visible and attributable long after it was first published, increasing both regulatory exposure and reputational risk. From Reactive to Proactive: How Firms Should Approach Marketing Compliance Many firms address compliance issues after they arise. This approach introduces avoidable risk, particularly in an environment where marketing activity is continuous, highly visible, and subject to retrospective scrutiny. A more effective approach treats marketing as a controlled, auditable communication function. This requires structure, accountability, and clear documentation aligned with the expectation that marketing activity may need to be reviewed or challenged at any point in time. Review processes should be designed to identify higher-risk content before publication, with a focus on claims, disclaimers, and contextual clarity. Approval workflows should define responsibility and ensure that decisions are formally recorded and attributable. Documentation standards should make it possible to reconstruct and evidence what was published, when it was approved, and how it changed over time. These controls reduce the likelihood of non-compliant content being published. More importantly, they ensure that firms are prepared to respond when questions arise. A well-structured approach creates a reliable, verifiable record of marketing activity, enabling firms to demonstrate compliance clearly and confidently during audits, regulatory inquiries, or disputes. Where Technology Fits: Enabling Defensible Marketing Compliance Meeting advertising rules is not sufficient on its own. Firms must also be able to demonstrate compliance if their marketing is questioned. In practice, this is where many firms face challenges. Marketing content is distributed across websites, social platforms, and third-party channels. It changes frequently, often without a complete record of what was published at a specific point in time. When regulators, competitors, or litigants raise concerns, firms may struggle to reconstruct the exact communication in question, including how it appeared, what disclaimers were shown, and what context surrounded the claim. In many jurisdictions, this challenge is a regulatory requirement. State bar rules increasingly expect law firms to maintain records of their advertising at specific points in time. In most states, this takes the form of event-driven archiving, where firms are required to retain copies of marketing content whenever it is “disseminated.” In practice, this means creating a new record each time a website is launched, significantly updated, or materially changed. Some states impose additional, more prescriptive requirements. New York Rule 7.1(k), for example, requires law firms to archive website content at defined milestones, including: the initial publication of the website any major redesign any meaningful and extensive content change In addition, New York requires firms to retain a copy of their website at least every 90 days, even if no significant changes have occurred. New Jersey applies a similar approach, requiring monthly archiving of attorney advertising. These requirements create a clear expectation. Firms must not only manage what they publish, but also maintain a complete, time-based record of how their advertising evolves. A defensible approach to marketing compliance therefore depends on the ability to capture, preserve, and reproduce marketing content as evidence, both on a scheduled basis and in response to change. Building a Defensible, Future-Ready Marketing Compliance Strategy The way law firms market their services has evolved, and the expectations that govern those activities have evolved with it. Digital channels have increased visibility and reach, while state-level regulation and enforcement have introduced additional complexity. Firms must now navigate a landscape where marketing activity is continuously exposed to scrutiny. Those firms that establish clear processes and invest in the right supporting technology are better positioned to manage risk, respond to regulatory demands, and maintain trust in a highly transparent environment.

For the better part of two decades, lateral recruiting has followed a familiar formula: identify a partner with a portable book of business, make the offer, and bank on the transition. The bigger the promised book, the bigger the win. That formula is starting to break down, and the reason isn’t the market. It’s the talent. I coach attorneys across a range of firms, and the shift I’m watching most closely right now is happening one generation down from the traditional lateral target. Young partners, often five to twelve years in, are rethinking what “making partner” is supposed to mean. They came up watching senior laterals get recruited on the strength of a client list, land at a new firm, and then spend two or three years finding out whether the culture actually fit. Some of them watched that experiment fail. They’re not interested in repeating it, for themselves or for the firms they’re evaluating. What they’re asking instead sounds less like “what’s the compensation model” and more like: Will people here actually invest in my growth? Do I believe in how this firm treats its people? Is there a path to owning relationships here, not just servicing someone else’s? That’s a different conversation than the one law firm leadership has traditionally been trained to have. The Firms Getting It Right Aren’t Chasing Book Size First On the firm side, I work with a handful of clients who’ve quietly rewritten their own recruiting playbook, and the pattern is consistent: they’ve stopped treating “will the book transition” as the primary filter and started treating it as one input among several. The questions that actually drive their decisions look more like this: Is this person a genuine cultural fit for the firm, not just a résumé fit? Do the attorneys who will actually work alongside this person like them, respect them, and want to support their success? Is there a real integration plan, or is the assumption that a strong lawyer will simply figure it out? To be clear, a transferable book and a strong skillset haven’t stopped mattering. They’re still table stakes; no firm is hiring a lateral it doesn’t believe can do the work and bring in business. But table stakes aren’t a differentiator, and the firms getting this right treat them that way. Fit is what determines whether the book, the skillset, and the person actually stick. Firms that lead with fit are making a bet that pays off in a way book-size bets often don’t: retention. A lateral who is genuinely liked and organizationally embedded is a lateral who stays, refers work internally, and becomes a source of growth rather than a flight risk three years later when a better offer comes along. The Second Half of the Equation: Knowing Where the Growth Actually Is Fit tells a firm who to bring in. It doesn’t tell them where to grow. That’s the second thing the firms I’d call sophisticated on this topic are doing well, and it’s less talked about than lateral hiring, but arguably more foundational. They’ve built real client feedback programs. Not the occasional relationship-partner check-in, but a structured, recurring discipline of asking clients directly: What do you need that you’re not getting? Where are we underinvested? What capability, if we had it, would make us more valuable to you? That insight, not a market trend report, not a competitor’s press release, is what should be pointing a firm toward its next practice group build-out, its next geography, or its next lateral hire. A firm that knows, with specificity, what its clients are asking for is a firm that can recruit with intention instead of opportunism. It’s the difference between “a great lawyer became available” and “our clients told us exactly what we’re missing, and we went and found the person who fills that gap, and who our people will actually want on the team.” Strategy Has to Sustain the Growth, Not Just Start It The firms doing this well treat lateral integration and client feedback as two halves of the same growth strategy, not separate initiatives run by separate departments. Getting the right person in the door is the easy part, relatively speaking. Sustaining growth means the firm has a clear enough picture of its own strategic direction that every lateral hire, every integration plan, and every client conversation is pointed the same way. As Kerry Price, Chief Strategy & Operations Officer at Bass, Berry & Sims, puts it herself: “Sustainable growth isn’t the result of any single great hire. It’s the product of a high-level strategy that ties together how we identify talent, how we integrate them, and how closely we’re listening to what our clients need—so that every lateral decision is in service of the same long-term direction, not a one-off reaction to who happens to be in the market.” A portable book gets a lateral in the door. Fit and feedback are what keep the lights on after that. Firms still chasing book size as the whole strategy are optimizing for a signing date, not a decade. 

Hiring legal support staff can feel straightforward on paper, but in practice it is one of the most consequential decisions a legal team makes. The right paralegal, contract attorney, or legal assistant can improve workflow efficiency, reduce risk, and keep matters moving under tight deadlines. The wrong hire can slow down case progress, create rework, and place additional strain on already stretched teams. First-time hiring managers and HR leads are not just reviewing resumes. It is knowing what to ask in an interview that reveals how a candidate will actually perform in a real legal environment. Strong hiring tips focus less on surface-level qualifications and more on judgment, reliability, and adaptability under pressure. Below are five interview prompts/questions designed to improve paralegal vetting, strengthen team-building decisions, and help you identify legal support professionals who will truly add value. 1. Walk me through how you prioritize tasks when everything is urgent. Legal work rarely arrives in a neat queue. Deadlines overlap, attorneys make last-minute requests, and discovery demands can escalate quickly. This question reveals how a candidate handles competing priorities without losing accuracy or composure. Strong candidates will describe a structured approach, such as assessing deadlines, identifying dependencies, and communicating proactively when workload shifts. Weak answers often rely on vague statements like “I just get it all done” without explaining the process. For team building, this question helps you understand whether a candidate can operate independently or whether they require constant direction. 2. Tell me about a time you caught an error before it became a problem. Attention to detail is non-negotiable in legal support roles. Whether reviewing documents, preparing discovery responses, or managing filings, small mistakes can lead to significant consequences. This question is especially valuable for paralegal vetting because it surfaces how carefully a candidate actually works under pressure. Look for answers that show ownership, such as reviewing work proactively, double-checking citations, or implementing personal quality control steps. The strongest responses will also include how the candidate communicated the issue and corrected it, not just how they found it. 3. How do you handle assignments when instructions are incomplete or unclear? In fast-paced litigation environments, instructions are not always perfect. A strong legal support professional knows how to move forward without making assumptions that could create risk. This question evaluates judgment and communication skills. Effective candidates will explain that they pause to clarify expectations, ask targeted questions, and confirm assumptions before proceeding. They will also show that they can make reasonable decisions when immediate clarification is not possible. From a hiring-tips perspective, this question helps identify candidates who balance independence with appropriate caution. 4. Describe your experience working with attorneys who have very different communication styles. Legal teams are rarely uniform in how they operate. Some attorneys want constant updates, while others prefer minimal interruption. Some are highly detail-oriented, while others focus on big-picture strategy. This question is critical for team building because it reveals how adaptable a candidate is in real workplace dynamics. Strong candidates will demonstrate emotional intelligence, flexibility, and the ability to adjust communication styles based on the person they are supporting. Look for signs that the candidate does not take feedback personally and can maintain professionalism even in high-pressure interactions. 5. What does high-quality legal work mean to you, and how do you ensure it in your day-to-day work? This question helps you understand a candidate’s internal standard for excellence. It also highlights whether their definition of quality aligns with your team’s expectations. Strong answers often reference consistency, accuracy, documentation, and accountability. Candidates may also mention checklists, peer review habits, or time management techniques they use to maintain accuracy. This is one of the most important questions for paralegal vetting because it goes beyond experience and focuses on mindset. Technical skills can be taught, but personal standards for quality are much harder to change. Beyond Performance: Addressing Potential Hiring Risks While behavioral interview questions help assess how a candidate is likely to perform on the job, experienced legal recruiters also recommend adding a few straightforward screening questions to identify potential concerns early in the hiring process. These questions are not about eliminating candidates based on isolated answers. Instead, they create space for transparency, context, and a clearer understanding of career decisions. Consider asking: What prompted you to leave your last position? Can you walk me through your recent career moves, particularly if you’ve had several short-term roles? Is there anything about your professional experience or career path that you’d like to provide additional context for? These types of questions help hiring managers understand patterns, clarify timelines, and surface anything that may be relevant to long-term success in the role. They also ensure the conversation stays grounded in professional experience while allowing candidates to explain their journey in their own words. Why Structured Interviews Matter More Than Ever Legal hiring has become increasingly complex. Teams are often hiring under time pressure, with limited visibility into a candidate’s real day-to-day capabilities. Without structured questions, interviews can easily become conversations about resumes rather than evaluations of performance. By using intentional hiring tips like the questions above, organizations can improve consistency in decision-making and reduce the risk of mismatched hires. This is especially important when building teams that need to scale quickly or support high-stakes litigation work. Strong interview design also supports better team building. Each hire does not just fill a role. They integrate into workflows, communication patterns, and case strategy execution. The better the fit, the more efficient the entire team becomes. Supporting Smarter Hiring Decisions At Array, we understand that finding qualified legal professionals is not just about filling open roles. It is about ensuring every placement supports accuracy, efficiency, and long-term success. Through our legal staffing and recruiting services, we connect firms and legal departments with carefully vetted professionals who are prepared to contribute from day one. Our approach to paralegal vetting and legal talent placement is designed to reduce uncertainty in hiring decisions. By focusing on experience, reliability, and proven performance in real legal environments, we help teams avoid costly hiring missteps and maintain momentum across matters. Whether you are building a new team or expanding support for growing caseloads, the right interview strategy is the first step toward stronger outcomes. With the right questions and the right staffing partner, hiring becomes less of a risk and more of a strategic advantage. 

Why rankings and traffic alone no longer fully explain intake performance. Many law firms still evaluate marketing performance primarily through rankings, traffic, and lead volume. These metrics are still important, but they no longer explain the entire intake picture. A law firm can rank well, generate traffic, and still quietly lose potential clients before a consultation request ever occurs. Most of the time, the issue is not visibility alone. It is what happens during the evaluation process between the search result and the first contact. Potential clients now compare reviews, validate firms through branded searches, evaluate attorney credibility, and ask AI tools legal questions before deciding who to trust. Important decisions are being made before a law firm website is ever visited. That shift is changing how firms should think about visibility, differentiation, and new case flow. Rankings No Longer Tell the Full Story Traditional SEO reporting still focuses heavily on rankings, impressions, clicks, and traffic. Those metrics still matter, but they do not fully capture several factors that now influence whether visibility actually turns into consultations and retained cases. Issues like losing trust during comparison, weak differentiation, intake friction, review inconsistency, AI-assisted pre-screening, and poor Google Maps visibility can all hurt intake performance long before a consultation request ever occurs. Visibility and consideration are no longer the same thing. Two firms may rank similarly while producing very different intake outcomes. One firm may appear more specialized, more trustworthy, or more established during the evaluation process, even when both firms are ranking in search results. That difference can directly impact consultation volume and retained cases. The New Client Evaluation Process Starts Earlier One way to understand this shift is through what can be called the “Law Firm Discovery Journey”: Problem Happens > Search Begins > AI + Maps Results > Shortlist Formation > Trust Validation > Practice Area Comparison > Brand Search > Contact & Intake At each stage, potential clients are making small decisions about trust, relevance, and credibility. The process often begins immediately after a legal issue occurs. Someone involved in a car accident, employment dispute, or business conflict may begin searching online under stress and with a limited understanding of the legal process. Historically, those searches were relatively direct: “San Diego employment lawyer” “Orange County personal injury attorney” Now, the process often starts much earlier and more conversationally. Potential clients can ask AI: “Do I even need a lawyer for wrongful termination?” “What is my case worth?” “Should I settle?” “How long do claims usually take?” “What should I do after a truck accident?” A recent LexisNexis consumer survey found that among consumers familiar with generative AI tools, 48% had already used AI for legal advice or assistance with a legal question. That changes how firms enter the decision-making process. Many people now receive preliminary information before ever reaching a law firm website. Google’s AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Gemini, and other AI-assisted tools can summarize information directly within search experiences. Research from the Pew Research Center recently found that users presented with AI-generated summaries were less likely to click traditional search results than users who did not encounter AI summaries. In many cases, the law firm website is no longer the first impression. It is simply one checkpoint within a broader evaluation process. 

There’s a new audience reading the thought leadership produced by attorneys and legal industry executives. The sooner they realize that and plan accordingly, the sooner they can take advantage of the opportunities this new audience offers. Attorneys and legal industry executives write their thought leadership for human readers. Makes perfect sense, right? Even with search engine optimization (SEO) driving how certain types of online content are written, attorneys and legal industry executives write thought leadership because it’s an effective way to position themselves as authorities. Thought leadership is about demonstrating knowledge and wisdom and providing insights to other humans. It’s not about writing content around specific keywords or trying to get to the top of Google search results. But times have changed. Today, the readers of thought leadership are no longer just humans. AI systems are now consuming thought leadership content at a scale that no human audience ever could. They’re evaluating our expertise, ranking our authority, summarizing our insights, and deciding whether our names and perspectives should appear first, fifth, or not at all when someone asks an AI platform to tell them who the “best” people are who do what we do, or asks questions that our published content could answer. And because of that, the legal industry’s traditional approach to publishing thought leadership is no longer enough. AI Platforms Are a New Thought Leadership Middleman One of the reasons thought leadership is and has been an effective marketing and business development tool is that no middleman filters its substance. Whether the thought leadership appeared in an email newsletter, a blog post, or a contributed article in a third-party publication, it was discoverable and digestible in its original form. When clients and referral sources discovered and digested thought leadership, they used it to evaluate the author’s expertise. They used it to determine who was knowledgeable and wise about the topics they covered in that thought leadership. They used it to decide whom to trust. They used it to decide whom to work with. But now AI sits between thought leaders and their audiences. It’s the new thought leadership middleman. It decides which content gets surfaced, summarized, or sidelined. AI platforms are shaping the visibility of attorneys, legal industry executives, and other professionals in the eyes of people using those platforms to find them. But many law firms and organizations that serve the legal industry don’t seem to realize what’s happening. They need to wake up, or they risk becoming invisible to AI platforms, leaving them invisible to clients, referral sources, and other target audiences. To be fair, searches on AI platforms pale in comparison to searches on Google. As of when I’m writing this, Google processes roughly 16.4 billion searches daily, while ChatGPT handles roughly 800 million AI searches. The latter’s share of searches is small (i.e., 4.9 percent). But an October 2025 Pew Research study found that users click links in search results 47% less when AI Overviews appear in Google results (8% click rate with AI Overviews vs 15% without). More concerning is that 26% of users end their browsing session after receiving AI-generated answers. That’s 63% higher than the 16% who end their sessions after a search when there are no AI Overviews. And therein lies the rub. Even though AI searches account for a relatively small (but growing) share of online searches, they often provide answers without citing the original source. Compare that to Google’s results, which, even when they display an AI overview at the top of the search results, will show a user links to other websites. If the user is searching for an answer to a question that’s answerable by thought leadership, the user could visit the websites where particular pieces of thought leadership live, consume that content, and find “new to them” thought leadership content creators whom they then follow-on social media, subscribe to their email newsletters, and/or generally become a new fan of. A New AI-Imposed Structure on Thought Leadership Much of the thought leadership published today is not structured in a way that AI will interpret as expert-authored. That’s not because the ideas in the thought leadership are weak; it’s because traditional thought leadership wasn’t designed to be evaluated the way AI platforms evaluate it today. AI penalizes vague structure, shallow analysis, and recycled summaries—traits that many pieces of thought leadership exhibit. AI rewards clarity, original insights, organized reasoning, and signals of genuine authority and expertise. In other words, AI is rewarding attorneys and legal industry executives who produce true thought leadership content—content that’s clear, original, organized, and shows that the author knows what they’re talking about. When we discuss structuring thought leadership on AI, we should briefly cover AEO, GEO, and AIO. AEO is “Answer Engine Optimization.” It’s the process of writing and structuring content so it’s easily understood by search engines’ built-in AI, which then summarizes it in the “AI Summary” section of its search results and, hopefully, includes a citation so users can see the content’s source. GEO is “Generative Engine Optimization.” It’s the process of writing and structuring content to increase its visibility in AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude. And finally, AIO is “Artificial Intelligence Optimization.” AIO is similar to GEO. It’s the process of writing and structuring content so AI platforms can more easily digest and understand it, and serve it up in answers to users’ questions. AEO, GEO, and AIO offer opportunities for law firms and organizations serving the legal industry to be first movers. The firms and organizations that produce thought leadership that appeals to both humans and AI platforms will be the ones that AI models reference in their results. The models will recognize the firms’ and organizations’ attorneys and leaders as trusted experts, cite their content more frequently, and recommend them as leaders in their fields more frequently. Time for Attorneys and Legal Industry Executives to Get in the Game Today, thought leadership has two audiences: humans and AI platforms. If an attorney’s or legal industry executives’ thought leadership doesn’t speak to both, they’re leaving visibility, credibility, and new business opportunities on the table. But these attorneys and executives can’t play the AEO, GEO, and AIO game, let alone the “produce thought leadership for humans to consume” game, if they’re not consistently producing thought leadership. They need to understand that, in today’s world, where AI is increasingly part of our everyday lives, building their authority—and perhaps a book of business—requires being seen as authoritative by both humans and AI platforms. The most effective path to getting there is by regularly publishing thought leadership, whether by taking the time to write it themselves, working with an associate or another colleague, or hiring an outside ghostwriter. 

A well-respected law firm CMO asked me recently: “What makes an effective business development plan for a lawyer?” At first blush, that seems like a simple question, but the more I thought about it, the less simple it became. I’d be curious to hear others’ views, but I ultimately landed here: An effective business development plan acknowledges the complexity of law firm sales and sweats the details. Call it sales management. To understand why detail-management matters so much, it helps to look at how sales experts define what we’re dealing with. Miller Heiman, one of the pioneering professional-services sales organizations, defines a complex sale this way (my paraphrasing): it unfolds over months or even years, involves multiple stakeholders, and requires hundreds of interdependent actions. Those actions must be identified, sequenced correctly, and completed on time. Miss or delay one step, and the pursuit can stall. Miss steps often enough, and the whole effort can crater. That’s why, in my opinion, accountability in complex sales must be binary. Every participant is given defined responsibilities, and for each, performance is judged simply by this: You had a task. Did you do it, yes or no? Consider some of those hundreds of interdependent actions. Did you: Make the phone call? Complete a business and competitive intelligence dossier? Schedule the conference room? Notice and share information about an industry development? Monitor the client’s stock price today? Give to the client’s favorite charity? Each task is small on its own. Together, they create a level of complexity that demands expert management. No matter how capable or motivated they are, most lawyer ... and, candidly, most professional staff under current firm structures ... don’t have the bandwidth, specialized expertise, or temperament required to oversee undertakings of this scale. But it would be wise to understand and emulate how parallel organizations have addressed the need. For years, the Big Four accounting firms and major management consulting firms have employed client-facing senior sales managers whose sole job is to oversee complex pursuits and client expansions. These are not junior coordinators, but rather seasoned professionals who design pursuit strategy, sequence actions, assign responsibilities, and enforce deadlines. Under this scenario, partners, as owners of the business, remain responsible for the legal work and for the overall pursuit, but execution is tightly managed by sales experts and business administrators. Law firms are now edging in the same direction. Some have invested in client or pursuit managers or senior BD leadership. Others are experimenting at the practice-group level. The direction of travel is clear: complexity demands professional management. What Most Firms Can Do Right Now Most firms don’t have Big Four-style sales leadership, and likely won’t anytime soon. But that doesn’t mean they’re stuck. Firm leadership can dramatically improve outcomes by introducing structure and discipline through four practical steps. First, appoint a pursuit owner. Every major opportunity should have one person responsible for execution: someone who sweats the details and tracks tasks, deadlines, and dependencies. And, if possible, that person should be someone other than an attorney, given the client-service responsibilities that only lawyers can provide and which can create bottlenecks impairing the entire pursuit. Second, standardize pursuit playbooks. Define required steps for complex opportunities: research, stakeholder mapping, content development, internal reviews, and follow-ups. Make them mandatory and uniform across the firm so that all personnel speak the same sales language. Third, make accountability explicit. Tasks should be assigned to named individuals with deadlines and measurable outcomes that can be answered “yes” or “no.” No shared ownership. No ambiguity. Fourth, review every major pursuit. Not just wins and losses, but process shortcomings and successes. Of course, examine what didn’t work: missed steps, unclear ownership, stalled momentum. Then, make room for celebration of what DID work: timely internal reviews, strong cross-practice collaboration, early client engagement, or crisp follow-up execution. This last point deserves emphasis: professionals involved in the grueling nature of large campaigns can become discouraged during long pursuits. Recognizing successful completion of interim tasks (even seemingly the smallest ones) and moving one step forward at a time creates positive energy, builds momentum, and reinforces the belief that a signed engagement letter, even if still months away, is achievable. Process reviews aren’t just about fixing problems; they’re about sustaining the human beings doing the work. The Outsourcing Option Increasingly, firms are outsourcing parts of this work. Standard pursuit components, such as research, competitive intelligence, pitch coordination, CRM hygiene, and even door-opening and pursuit management, can be handled by external specialists. For firms that cannot justify full-time senior sales leadership, outsourcing provides access to the same discipline, absent the headcount. It allows firms to professionalize their sales execution before making permanent investments. And it allows resource-constrained firms, especially small and middle-market firms, to compete effectively as never before. Artificial Intelligence tools are accelerating this trend. External partners can now leverage AI to accelerate research synthesis, improve consistent competitive monitoring, and streamline CRM maintenance—tasks that once required significant staff time. However, the strategic judgment calls—which opportunities to pursue, how to position against competitors, when to escalate client engagement—still require experienced human oversight. The firms seeing the best results are those combining AI efficiency with seasoned pursuit management, whether in-house or outsourced. Why BD Plans Fail Understanding what makes plans effective means recognizing what makes them fail. The most common failure modes I’ve observed include pursuit ownership that’s shared (which means no one owns it), playbooks that exist but aren’t enforced, accountability structures that allow “partial credit” rather than demanding yes-or-no answers, and reviews that only happen after wins or losses rather than continuously throughout pursuits. The bottom line: the most important component of business development effectiveness is understanding the complexity of law firm sales efforts and ensuring that pursuits and client expansions are guided by discipline and management. The specific mechanism—whether Big Four-style sales leadership, the pursuit of owners with standardized playbooks, or outsourced specialists supported by AI—matters less than the commitment to professional execution. I’d be interested in other perspectives. What, to you, characterizes effective business development planning? What makes it work…or not? 

Deciding who to promote inside a law firm is one of the most important leadership decisions you will make. Promotions do more than change titles; they shape firm culture, reinforce expectations, and influence how your team views opportunity and fairness. When handled thoughtfully, they motivate performance and reward the right behaviors. When handled poorly, they can create resentment, reduce productivity, and send the wrong message about what the organization truly values. For this reason, law firms need to think long-term about whom to promote to managerial or supervisory positions and whom to avoid promoting. Promote Performance—Not Noise In many cases, the best promotion candidates are not the individuals actively asking for advancement. Instead, they are the ones who show up every day, work hard, and consistently produce strong results. These team members meet or exceed productivity metrics, take ownership of their responsibilities, and provide a high level of service to clients. They tend to be dependable, team-oriented, and focused on the firm’s success rather than their own personal recognition. By the time they are promoted, they are often already functioning at the next level, and the promotion simply acknowledges the role they have been performing all along. Be Wary of Promotions Driven by Pressure Promotions driven by pressure or demands can create long-term problems. When an employee insists on being promoted or presents an ultimatum, it can signal a sense of entitlement that does not align with a performance-based culture. Advancement should never be used as a tool to retain someone who has not demonstrated consistent productivity, strong performance, and alignment with the firm’s values. That does not mean employees cannot express interest in their future. It is perfectly appropriate for someone to communicate that they enjoy working at the law firm and would be honored to be considered for advancement when the time is right. The key distinction is between professional interest in growth and a demand for a title. The Importance of Time and Consistency Time and consistency are critical factors in promotion decisions. While there is no single formula, it is usually wise to see an employee perform through different seasons of the practice before elevating them. A lawyer or staff member may perform well for a few months, but the real test is whether they can maintain that performance during busy, slower, and challenging periods. In many instances, a year or more with the firm provides the opportunity to evaluate reliability, judgment, work ethic, and cultural fit. You are not simply promoting technical ability; you are promoting trust. Promote People Who Make the Firm Better The strongest candidates for promotion are those who make the firm better in measurable and intangible ways. They improve the client experience, enhance efficiency, and positively influence the people around them. Their attitude and professionalism set a standard that others naturally begin to follow. When these individuals are promoted, the decision reinforces a culture where advancement is earned through performance, humility, and consistency rather than personality or politics. Culture Is Built Through Promotion Decisions Every promotion sends a message to the rest of the organization. It tells your team what success looks like, what behaviors are rewarded, and what standards truly matter. If promotions are tied to productivity, client satisfaction, teamwork, and long-term performance, the firm will attract and retain people who embody those qualities. If they are tied to pressure or short-term needs, the culture will gradually shift in that direction. Final Thought The most effective promotion decisions are deliberate rather than reactive. They recognize sustained excellence, reward the right behaviors, and position the firm for long-term success. In most cases, the right people to promote are not those asking for the opportunity, but those who have already earned it through their work. 

The Wu-Tang Clan taught us that “cash rules everything around me.” And nowhere is this truer than in law firms. I have learned a lot about people over the last two years. I have been through a lot. I have been betrayed by people I trusted. And I have been uplifted by people who possess a genuine moral compass and an authentic sense of values. Separating the posers from the real ones has been an unexpected gift in a long battle. Here is what I have learned: It is dangerous to come between people and money. Most people will choose money every single time. This is not cynicism. This is observation. And if you want to understand why law firms struggle with culture, why toxic partners survive for decades, why meaningful reform feels impossible, you need to understand this fundamental truth about human nature and economic incentives. The Economics of Looking Away Law firms are money-making machines. This is not a criticism. It is simply a fact. Partners eat what they kill. Compensation depends on origination credits, billable hours, and business development. Every relationship has a dollar sign attached to it. This creates a problem when values and profit collide. Good people will excuse awful behavior if they think addressing it will cost them money or the opportunity to make money. They won’t endorse the behavior. They will simply look the other way. I have watched this happen repeatedly. Sexual harassment. Bullying. Substance abuse. Partners who treat associates like disposable labor. Rainmakers who create hostile work environments. The pattern is always the same. People know. People see. People stay quiet. Why? Because that partner brings in three million dollars a year. Because that practice group generates twenty percent of the firm’s revenue. Because confronting the problem means risking the relationship and risking the money. This is how monsters survive in professional environments. Harvey Weinstein operated for decades. Diddy operated for decades. Otherwise, decent people knew something was wrong and said nothing. Fear played a role. But so did greed. Speaking up meant risking access. Risking opportunity. Risking the next deal. Law firms operate on the same dynamics, just at a smaller scale and with lower stakes. The partner who screams at associates? Everyone knows. The partner who makes inappropriate comments? Everyone knows. The partner who takes credit for other people’s work? Everyone knows. And everyone stays quiet because the math is simple. Confrontation equals risk. Silence equals continued compensation. The Convenient Lie This dynamic makes it easy for people to believe lies that serve their interests. When someone challenges a powerful person, the firm faces a choice. Investigate genuinely and risk losing a rainmaker or accept a convenient narrative that protects the revenue stream. I have watched otherwise intelligent people embrace obvious falsehoods because the truth was expensive. Liars understand this. They craft narratives designed for a receptive audience. An audience that wants to believe. An audience that has financial incentives to believe. This is not stupidity. It is motivated reasoning. People are remarkably good at convincing themselves that what benefits them financially is also what is true and right. The partner accused of harassment? There must be another explanation. The associate who complained? Probably a performance issue. The pattern of behavior spanning years and multiple victims? Coincidence. Convenient lies require cooperative believers. Law firms are full of them. What Values Actually Mean Here is what I have learned about values: They are what you do when it is inconvenient and does not maximize profit. Anyone can have values when values cost nothing. Anyone can stand for integrity when integrity is easy. The test comes when standing for something means losing something. Most people fail this test. They will profess values up to and until those values cost them money. Then the rationalizations begin. Then the exceptions emerge. Then the principles that seemed so firm suddenly become flexible. I am not saying this to condemn anyone. I am saying this because understanding it is essential to understanding how law firms actually work. When a firm says it values diversity but promotes the same demographic year after year, what does it actually value? When a firm says it values work-life balance but rewards partners who bill 2400 hours, what does it actually value? When a firm says it values respect but tolerates a partner who demeans staff, what does it actually value? The answer is always the same. Firms value what they pay for. Everything else is marketing. The Danger of Speaking Truth Telling the truth is rarely convenient. Speaking up that something is wrong is only safe when the wrongdoer is weak. If they are in power, you are in trouble. I have lived this. Speaking truth to power in a law firm environment is career-threatening behavior. The person who raises concerns becomes the problem. The whistleblower becomes the troublemaker. The truth-teller becomes the one who lacks judgment. This is not an accident. It is a feature of the system. Power protects itself by punishing those who challenge it. And in law firms, power is measured in dollars. The associate who reports a partner’s misconduct faces retaliation. The partner who challenges another partner’s behavior faces political consequences. The staff member who refuses to participate in something unethical faces termination. Meanwhile, the person with power faces nothing. Because they generate revenue. Because they have relationships. Because removing them costs money. This creates a brutal calculus for anyone with a conscience. Speak up and risk everything. Stay quiet and keep your career intact. Most people choose their careers. I do not blame them. I understand the choice even when I disagree with it. Control Mechanisms Abusive systems require control mechanisms. Law firms have plenty. Compensation structures are control mechanisms. When your income depends on the discretion of a small group of people, you learn quickly not to challenge that group. Origination credits are control mechanisms. When credit for business can be allocated or taken away based on relationships, you learn to maintain relationships even with people who behave badly. Awards and recognition are control mechanisms. Who gets nominated? Who gets celebrated? These decisions signal what the firm actually values and who holds power. Partnership decisions are the ultimate control mechanism. Years of work leading to a single vote by people whose favor you need. How likely are you to rock the boat during that process? These mechanisms are not inherently evil. But they create environments where abuse can flourish. Where silence becomes rational. Where going along becomes safer than speaking up. The Silence That Enables Abuse depends on silence. The silence of victims, yes. But more importantly, the silence of bystanders. There is a quote often attributed to Dante, though the sourcing is disputed: “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Whether Dante said it or not, the sentiment is true. Neutrality in the face of wrongdoing is not neutral. It is support for the wrongdoer. Every person who sees something wrong and says nothing makes it easier for that wrong to continue. Law firms are full of neutral people. People who know something is wrong. People who have the standing to speak up. People who choose not to because the personal cost is too high. I have been one of those people. I have seen things and said nothing because the timing was not right. Because I needed something from someone. Because I was afraid. I am not proud of it. But I have also been the person who spoke up. Who challenged power. Who refused to go along. And I have paid for it. Every single time. The Leadership Problem Here is the hard truth that nobody wants to acknowledge: All problems in a law firm are leadership problems. Toxic partners exist because leadership allows them to exist. Bad culture persists because leadership permits it to persist. Values get compromised because leadership compromises them. When a firm tolerates behavior that contradicts its stated values, that is a leadership decision. When a firm protects a rainmaker at the expense of everyone else, that is a leadership decision. When a firm chooses revenue over integrity, that is a leadership decision. Healthy law firms are those with values-driven leadership. Leaders who make hard decisions. Leaders who remove toxic people even when it costs money. Leaders who demonstrate through action that certain behaviors are unacceptable regardless of how much business someone brings in. These firms exist. They are rare. They are almost always led by people who have decided that some things matter more than maximizing profit. Evil Is Real I have come to believe that evil exists in the world. Not cartoon evil. Not mustache-twirling villainy. Ordinary evil. The evil of people who do harm because they can. Because it benefits them. Because nobody stops them. Evil banks on greed. Evil banks on self-interest. Evil banks on weak people who will not stand in its way. Law firms are not uniquely evil places. But they are places where the incentives align in ways that let bad actors thrive. Where the structures protect power. Where the economics reward silence. If you work in a law firm, you will eventually face a moment where your values and your interests conflict. You will have to decide who you actually are. Most people discover they are weaker than they thought. Some people discover they are stronger. Either way, you will learn something about yourself. I have learned a lot about myself over the last two years. I have learned what I will tolerate and what I will not. I have learned what I will sacrifice to maintain my integrity. I have learned who my real friends are. And I have learned that speaking truth in law firms is dangerous business. It remains worth doing anyway. Not because it will be rewarded. Not because it will be easy. But because some things matter more than money. The Wu-Tang Clan was right. Cash rules everything around us. But it does not have to rule us.

Do you know how effective this marketing tactic is? How much profit (or loss) is attributed to a specific marketing expense—what’s my ROI? It’s a question we get asked every day. Understanding the return on your investment (ROI) can be tricky. Especially in professional services, most clients’ hiring decisions are based on a combination of factors, so it can be difficult to attribute a new client to one specific marketing line item. Often a potential client will become aware of your services in multiple ways, frequently through a referral from a trusted friend or business associate, perhaps building a relationship with you over time and eventually hiring you when an immediate need presents itself. Firms want to understand the best places to spend limited marketing dollars. For very large firms, it may make sense to put sophisticated tracking mechanisms into place for determining the relative contributions of various marketing tactics to the client development process. For smaller shops, a few basic and manageable measures may prove helpful enough without creating an undue burden. The following are a few guiding thoughts. Begin With the End in Mind At the start of each marketing campaign or activity, ask yourself what success will look like. What is the business driver for your campaign? Are you trying to drive revenue for a specific type of work? Increase traffic to your website? Do you need to recruit talented associates? Are you supporting a succession plan to transfer firm ownership to the next generation of leaders? How we measure marketing and public relations results has evolved over the years. As digital platforms offer increasingly sophisticated tracking insights, there are new data points and ways to measure online results. But “real world” activities require a more human touch. In any case, you don’t have to measure everything possible to gain useful insights into the effectiveness of your marketing spend. Instead, start with a few manageable objectives that support your overall business goals and build on them over time. Define Your Goals If your goal is to increase traffic to your website, think through the why, the how, and, most importantly, the where. Is your inbound traffic visiting the right pages of your site to take the next step in their journey with you? Set up key event goals to track in Google Analytics 4 (which has replaced Universal Analytics). In addition to looking at simple site visits, track where and how long people spend time on your site. Did they follow a call to action (CTA), such as downloading information, filling out a form, or contacting the firm? If you invest in a conference exhibit booth, plan ways to track the number (and quality) of attendee contacts made during the event. Were you able to convert these people into LinkedIn connections, newsletter subscribers, follow-up calls, or other measurable post-event activities? A firm can look at successful results through many different lenses, each as one stepping stone to building practice success. Tracking Whatever your ultimate goal, you’ll need a way to track results. It’s helpful to start with a baseline prior to initiating your activity. For example, if your goal is to gain more clients in a particular practice, you’ll need to know how many matters you have in that area and where your clients have come from historically. If you haven’t been tracking referral sources in the past, do the best you can to gather the information and then begin a system for tracking this going forward. The most common way would be to have a “Referred by” field or two associated with your intake process. Ask every potential client how they found you, even if they don’t end up hiring you. You’ll want a way to generate reports based on this information, whether as part of an accounting system, a contact relationship management platform (CRM) or a simple Excel spreadsheet. Reviewing your referred-by information at regular intervals, you can attach revenues generated (or projected) on those specific matters to determine the ROI of the marketing you do. Keep in mind, that the client may tell you that their accountant referred you, but you’ll want to try to understand how that accountant met you in the first place. Perhaps it was because you spoke at an accounting industry event or met them through a networking forum. Those insights will help you to identify the ROI of your various activities. Depending on the volume of data you will need to digest, track, and report, it may be beneficial to standardize some information. For example, you might want to have a set of general categories on which you can sort and filter, such as “Print Ads,” “Organic Internet Search,” and “Conferences,” as well as a freeform field for additional information, such as the name and firm name of a specific referral source or the name and year of the conference or advertising campaign. Memories will fade, so the more specific you are now, the better your future decision-making will be. Quantity vs. Quality Many traditional (and even current digital) sales funnel principles are developed from a consumer products (and services) perspective. This model assumes that casting a very wide net (i.e., being in front of a high volume of eyeballs) will equate to higher sales. For some aspects of your marketing, this may offer some useful guidance. Especially if you run a practice that relies on reaching clients who are likely to use your services only once, such as personal injury or consumer bankruptcy. In these cases, you can look at the cost of, for example, a pay-per-click (PPC) campaign and track how many qualified leads contact your office based on that campaign. Then, determine how many of those contacts convert into actual clients. Of course, there is a lot that happens between those two events, so make sure you are not making false assumptions about effectiveness. For example, if many people contact your office based on an advertisement, but you don’t respond to the majority of them until three days after initial contact, most of those people probably won’t become clients. In that case, the activity generated from your marketing spend might be high (demonstrating a high ROI for driving clients to the firm), but your lack of follow-through may be crushing your conversion rate (creating a low ROI when measuring the number of actual new clients gained). Many legal practices and B2B services have long sales cycles. These firms may need to spend more dollars (and time) on long-tail initiatives that deepen relationships with key referral sources or concentrate on building impressive credentials for their attorneys showcasing niche expertise. While it is rare that publishing a single article in an industry trade publication will cause the phone to ring with a new client, having that publication listed on an attorney’s bio will likely be an influencing factor in their assessment of the attorney’s expertise. These types of activities will be harder to attribute individually to a specific client acquisition. However, they are worthwhile as contributing factors, making their cumulative effect very powerful. In these cases, the most important measure may not be the number of reader impressions with potential clients or referral sources, but rather ensuring that the activities are targeted to engage the right specific people with hiring or influencing authority—typically a small subset of individuals. Measuring What Matters There are nearly limitless metrics you can use to determine whether a marketing campaign is effectively supporting your goals. Here are a few more ways to think about the question of ROI. If the firm is expanding into a new geography, is your marketing generating new leads originating from that location? Are website visitors engaging with content that is specifically relevant to that location? If the firm places digital ads with a publication, have you set them up with tracking links so you can see the number of visitors that come to your website directly by clicking on that ad? Are you testing and tracking different versions to continuously improve on your results? If you want to showcase niche expertise, have you increased the volume of content published on the topic (via blogs, article placements, podcast appearances, videos or other media)? Are you leveraging that content across multiple platforms? How are your audiences engaging with that content? Final Thoughts Be patient. Remember that marketing requires consistency. Just because you become bored with your campaign and are ready to move on to the next shiny marketing object doesn’t mean that you’ve even scratched the surface of market penetration. Some say that it takes seven impressions before your audience will consciously process your advertising message. Of course, having the right solution communicated to a potential client exactly when they need that particular service is the secret sauce. Since you rarely know when that is going to be, having a consistent presence is the key. The value of any marketing activity is ultimately how well it helps support your business goals. You don’t have to address all of the aspects discussed above with a complete overhaul of your marketing program, especially if you are a small team or managing a limited budget (and let’s be honest, who isn’t?). Rather, identify one goal, build a targeted campaign around that, and measure it (ideally, you’ll have a baseline based on historical data). Try new things, measure, analyze, and adjust. If you aren’t seeing the needle move after a reasonable period, try something different. The better you focus your marketing and business development activities in support of specific firm goals, the more you will realize a positive return on your marketing investments. 

It’s the question keeping legal marketers up at night: “With the rise of AI-powered search, is traditional SEO still worth the investment?” If you’ve been fielding questions from stakeholders asking for Artificial Intelligence Optimization (AIO) or wondering why your firm isn’t pivoting its entire strategy to optimize for ChatGPT, you’re not alone. The search landscape is shifting, and Google’s introduction of AI Overviews has created a climate of uncertainty. However, the panic about the “death of SEO” is largely overstated. Google’s Search Liaison, Danny Sullivan, recently addressed these concerns. His message was clear: You do not need to choose between traditional SEO and AI optimization. In fact, trying to separate them could be a costly mistake for your firm. The “New Stuff” is Built on the “Old Stuff” When tools like Google’s AI Mode and AI Overviews arrive on the scene, the instinct is to demand a specific strategy for those platforms. Sullivan acknowledged that SEO professionals are in a tough spot when stakeholders demand “the new stuff.” However, he warns against inventing something entirely new merely out of appeasement. Instead, Sullivan explained that the best way to succeed with AI Overviews is to continue executing the fundamental SEO practices that have always worked. He advised telling stakeholders, “These are continuing to be the things that are going to make you successful in the long-term… I’m keeping an eye on it, but right now, the best advice I can tell you when it comes to how we’re going to be successful with our AEO is that we continue on doing the stuff that we’ve been doing because that is what it’s built on.” The “fancy new thing” is built upon the foundation of the “same old thing.” Google’s AI is trained to look for high-quality, helpful, and authoritative content, the exact same metrics traditional SEO has prioritized for years. Abandoning SEO Won’t Help Your Firm’s ROI There is a growing trend of “AI Optimization” services suggesting that businesses should tailor their content specifically to rank in chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, or Perplexity. This often involves creating listicles or tweaking keyword phrases in ways that feel spammy, tactics that reputable SEOs abandoned nearly two decades ago. Before you pivot your budget to chase chatbot visibility, you must look at the numbers. The search traffic share for these standalone AI chatbots is a fraction of a percent. Estimates place ChatGPT’s search market share between 0.2% and 0.5%, with competitors like Claude registering close to zero. Compare this to Google and Bing, which still command the vast majority of global search traffic. From a Return on Investment (ROI) perspective, prioritizing AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) or GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) over traditional search makes zero sense. You would be optimizing for a microscopic segment of the audience while neglecting the platform where your actual customers are searching. The Risks of Over-Complication Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode are different from standalone chatbots, but the underlying machinery remains the same. Sullivan confirmed that the ranking systems powering these AI interfaces are still based on Google’s classic search algorithms. If you start bifurcating your strategy by creating one type of content for “Search” and another for “AI,” you risk overcomplicating your marketing operations. Sullivan warned that dramatic shifts in strategy to chase AI rankings often lead to confusion rather than success, “The more that you dramatically shift things around, and start doing something completely different… the more that you may be making things far more complicated, not necessarily successful in the long term.” Simple, high-quality content remains the gold standard. If you muddy the waters with complex, divergent strategies, you may dilute your overall authority. The Evolution of Technical SEO If content is king, what happens to the technical side of SEO?  During the same discussion, Google’s John Mueller offered an interesting perspective on the evolution of technical SEO. In the early days of the internet, simply making a site accessible to a crawler required significant technical heavy lifting. Today, modern Content Management Systems (CMS) have changed the game. Mueller pointed out that platforms like WordPress, Wix, and Squarespace now handle the majority of technical SEO requirements “out of the box.” This doesn’t mean technical SEO is dead; complex sites still require expert architectural management. But for many businesses, the barrier to entry has lowered. Sullivan agreed, noting that this shift is positive. It allows marketers and business owners to stop stressing over backend code and focus on what truly matters: the content. Sullivan notes, “I don’t even want to think about this SEO stuff anymore. I’m just getting back into the joy of writing blogs … That’s what we want you to do. That’s where we think you’re going to find your most success.” By letting the CMS handle the technical baseline, your team can dedicate its resources to creating the kind of deep, expert-driven content that feeds both the traditional search engine and the AI Overview. How SEO and AIO Work Together The verdict is clear: SEO and AIO are not enemies. They are partners. Optimizing for traditional search is, by definition, optimizing for AI Overviews. The AI needs a source of truth. It needs clear, structured, and authoritative data to generate its answers. If your website provides that through solid SEO practices, you are positioning yourself to win in both arenas So, what does a robust SEO/AIO strategy look like? Stick to E-E-A-T: Google’s criteria for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness apply to AI just as much as traditional links. Ensure your content is written by experts. Provide Comprehensive Answers: Platforms like AI Overviews leverage “query fan-out” to break down single, complex queries into multiple, specific sub-queries. When writing about a topic, aim to be as comprehensive as possible. For example, if you’re working on a blog about “divorce” in a particular state, be sure to cover all the angles, from child custody and asset division to alimony and mediation vs. litigation. Focus on Readability: If a human struggles to read your content, an AI likely will too. Use clear sentence structure, avoid legalese, and use headings and bullet points to ensure scanability. Don’t Chase Algorithms: Algorithms change daily. If you prioritize writing for the human user, you are future-proofing your content against whatever update comes next. SEO/AIO For Law Firms: A New Visibility Paradigm The arrival of AI in search is a significant technological shift, but it does not require a complete reinvention of your marketing wheel. As Danny Sullivan advises, the “fancy new thing” is rarely as sustainable as the foundational practices that built it. The path forward is one of integration, not separation. You don’t need to view AI Overviews as a separate channel that requires a new budget and an entirely new strategy. Instead, see it as the evolution of search, one that rewards the same high-quality, expert-driven content you should already be producing. Focus on your audience. Answer their questions. Demonstrate your expertise. If you do that, the algorithms, human-coded or AI-powered, will follow.

If your law firm hasn’t started paying attention to its LLM presence, there’s a new compelling reason you should—in fact, 29 million of them. In a study of 97 B2B websites, Orbit Media found that visitors who come from AI sources (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, you name it) are more likely to become an actual lead than visitors from other sources. Specifically, by examining the analytics for these websites, spanning one year and 29 million visits, Orbit Media discovered that visitors who come from AI are three times more likely to convert into leads than those who come from organic (non-advertisement) traffic sources. Why? Orbit Media presented four theories: The AI guided the user through a “shortlist” process. Here, we assume that before clicking on a link supplied by a tool like ChatGPT, the user had engaged in a series of qualifying questions with the LLM. For example, “Help me find a trademark law firm in Florida” led to discussions of specific cities, industry verticals, or fee structures. The user already knows your firm, but the LLM prompted final action. This would occur if a potential client had chatted about your firm before or simply asked the LLM for your website link. Users view AI responses as advice, not ads. While a Google search brings a long list of possibilities—and we’ve all become cynical at the riffraff inherent therein—LLM output feels more like a sensible advisor. (Keep in mind that, according to one study, ChatGPT may now be the single largest provider of mental health care in the U.S. Trust in these platforms is dangerously high.) AI users “skew serious.” As Orbit Media put it, people don’t open ChatGPT to kill time the way they scroll on social media. People go to it with specific questions when they have specific intent. They’re not curious about trademark law generally; they’re looking to get one registered. Whatever the specific reason, it’s imperative for law firms to ensure their websites are well-positioned to capture this audience. Start by determining your current “Share of Model.” What are the LLM queries that matter most to your firm, and how are you showing up now? This can be done manually or through dedicated software; if done manually, ensure you take into account inherent bias. LLM tools that you have used before will be familiar with your firm, and results will be falsely positive. Understanding the current landscape will help you put together an action plan to increase the firm’s visibility. While every situation is different, marketing tactics we are recommending include: Practice pages. A Firesign review showed law firm practice pages were the most-cited URLs by ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google AI Overview. Revise your practice pages to be “AI-friendly” with elements like Frequently Asked Questions, statistics, definitions and lists. Awards and rankings. Firesign analysis shows Perplexity and Google AI Overview both rely on industry rankings like Chambers USA, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers and Best Law Firms to refer lawyers. Consider which award programs you need to add, which you need to enhance, and ensure your current listings are accurate and specific. PR. When it comes to law firm recommendations, at Firesign we see LLMs referring to trade media (Law360, regional Lawyers Weekly publications); press releases on reputable newswires, such as Globe Newswire; and Wikipedia. Executing all of these creates a credibility loop, as press releases can bring earned media, and earned media is a critical component of becoming “Wikipedia-worthy.” As you explore this new (and ever-changing) aspect of law firm marketing, a few caveats: Beware “one-size-fits-all” advice. There are a lot of general recommendations for growing a company’s AI visibility that don’t necessarily work for the legal sector. For example, many “best practices” stress earned media alone, but it’s evident that for law firms, the LLMs have been trained to incorporate specific rankings, like Chambers. Don’t exhaust yourself trying to be everywhere. If you have limited time and resources, focus on ChatGPT. According to Orbit Media’s study, ChatGPT drives 8 in 10 AI visits, five times more than every other AI tool combined. Pay attention to its specific favorites (Wikipedia, law firm practice pages) and run some smart experiments. Don’t focus solely on AI visibility. In the Orbit Media analysis of 97 B2B sites, Google Search drove 100 times more traffic. The conversion is lower, but the volume is critical. As always, a well-rounded marketing strategy that incorporates a full range of channels (website content, PR, awards, social media) is the best bet for sustainable success wherever clients are looking. 

Marketing evolves so quickly in the Internet age that sometimes businesses, and even marketers themselves, have trouble keeping up. While some take advantage of cutting-edge concepts and technology, others hold firm to old ideas that still seem to work, but could actually be hindering results. One of the key marketing metrics that every law firm should monitor is their number of qualified leads. Qualified leads allow you to target prospects most likely to become clients, concentrating your efforts where you’re likely to get the best results. Qualified leads are generally categorized in one of two ways: Marketing Qualified Leads (MQL) A prospect becomes an MQL based on some type of interaction with marketing materials. In online marketing, this often involves actions like completing a form to request additional information or subscribing to an email list. Sales Qualified Leads (SQL) An SQL may or may not start as an MQL, but it meets other criteria set by sales staff that indicate a prospect is more likely to actually become a customer or client. This type of qualification and categorization does, indeed, help to concentrate sales effort on prospects who are more likely to become clients. However, it falls short in many ways. In reality, it is applying an old concept to a new technology. Why the Concepts of MQL and SQL Don’t Work in the 21 st Century The problem with the concepts of marketing and sales qualified leads is that they require prospects — even those ready to become clients right now — to slow down and take extra steps before they are connected with the person who will close the sale. This process is very much at odds with the instant gratification, get-it-done-and-give-it-to-me-now culture that we live in. Everything moves at the speed of the Internet. When people have questions, they want to talk in real-time. When they want to buy something, they want to buy it now. Older generations barely remember the once common phrase, “Allow 4 to 8 weeks for delivery.” Younger generations would laugh at the suggestion of waiting so long for anything. The idea of a marketing or sales qualified lead is tied to a time when businesses and marketers barely had any contact at all with the people they were trying to convert into clients. Advertising was blasted out on TV, radio or newspapers and correspondence was carried out with pen and paper through the post office. Times have changed. The Concept of Conversation Qualified Leads One of the biggest benefits the Internet offers marketers is unprecedented access to the audience they are trying to reach. Two-way communication is fast, free and easy. You or anyone at your law firm can reach out and talk to potential clients any time you wish. The concept of conversation qualified leads takes full advantage of the multitude of communication channels available through the Internet. It’s a concept so simple that it has been almost completely overlooked. Don’t make your prospects jump through hoops to get in touch with you. Make it easy for them. Just talk to them, and they will tell you exactly what you need to do to convert them. Qualify your leads based on actual conversations, not arbitrary actions taken through a website or an email. It may sound like a lot more work, but stop and think about it for a moment. Let’s look at someone who’s trying to contact you through live chat on your website or social media platform, versus someone who’s subscribed to your email list. Email Subscription When someone signs up for an email subscription, they’ve shown interest, but you don’t know exactly what they are looking for. Maybe they just want some information, but have no real intention of hiring your firm. You may have to send five, ten, or even more emails just to get them to take the next step and let you know what they really want. The bottom line is that this person has become a qualified lead, but you still don’t know what they want or if they’ll even convert into a client. That’s not to say that this type of lead isn’t worth following up with, but you obviously get a much clearer picture of what you’re dealing with when there is a conversation involved, and you get that picture much faster. How to Start the Conversation Communication with prospects is not difficult. In fact, you’ve probably already got plenty of possible clients waiting to talk to you. There are four main ways of initiating the communication that leads to conversation qualified leads: Live chat on your website Chat bots on your website Live chat through social media Chat bots through social media Live Chat Adding the option to chat with someone live on your website can make a tremendous difference in how visitors react to your law firm’s brand. People absolutely love the idea of getting real-time answers, rather than filling out a form and waiting hours or even days for someone to respond. It really goes a long way toward building trust and confidence. There are plenty of free and paid solutions that make it easy to add live chat to any website. Once it’s set up, it’s as simple as keeping a web page open in a tab of your browser and answering basic questions when someone asks for help. Some social networks, like Facebook, will also let you chat live with your followers. Chatbots It might seem a bit impersonal at first, but chatbots can also do a good job of qualifying leads while keeping up the fast pace prospects expect. Bots can be set up to answer the most common questions your firm receives, and then either pass new leads off to a live person, or allow the visitor to schedule follow-up if nobody is available immediately. Again, bots can be set up to interact with visitors on your website, or through social networks. Using Data Analytics to Enhance Lead Qualification Incorporating data analytics into your lead qualification process can further refine how your law firm approaches potential clients. By leveraging detailed insights, your firm can identify patterns, preferences, and behaviors that signal a high likelihood of conversion. Behavioral Tracking: Analytics tools can monitor how users interact with your website, emails, and social media. Knowing which pages they visit, how long they stay, and which content resonates with them allows you to better understand their needs and level of interest. Lead Scoring Models: Data analytics enables the development of lead scoring models that assign values to leads based on certain behaviors, such as website visits, downloads, or social media engagement. This helps prioritize high-value leads and guide your team’s outreach efforts accordingly. Predictive Analysis: By identifying trends in the behaviors of converted leads, you can predict which current leads are more likely to convert and adjust your approach to them. Predictive analytics helps your firm focus its efforts where they’re most likely to be successful Utilizing data analytics in combination with conversation-driven strategies ensures your firm is optimizing lead generation efforts, making informed decisions, and accelerating the path from prospect to client. Key Takeaways In the end, other than talking directly to potential leads, your firm won’t need to change anything else in their marketing strategy. You can still use all the same advertising methods and lead processing procedures. When someone clicks on an ad and returns to your firm’s website, they’ll still see the same landing pages. They will have the option to speak with someone live, either in addition to or instead of filling out a form. When someone has been established as a lead, they’ll still be handed off to the person most able to serve their needs. Nothing changes there. What you’ve done by opening these direct lines of live communication is to take full advantage of the Internet to put your absolute best leads on a fast-track to becoming clients. It’s a win-win situation for everyone. The job of closing the sale is easier, and the client is happier. Your firm, quite literally, has nothing to lose and everything to gain by embracing the concept of conversation qualified leads.

When lawyers collaborate with an outside writer to help them craft and publish thought-leadership marketing content, they are making a small investment for which they could realize significant ROIs. I frequently speak with lawyers and law firm marketing or business development professionals regarding their firms’ investment in their content marketing and thought-leadership marketing programs. These conversations frequently touch on those lawyers’ and law firms’ experience and interest in collaborating with an outside writer (also known as a “ghostwriter”) to help those lawyers craft and publish thought-leadership marketing content like blog posts, bylined articles, client alerts, and the like. Very often, when I have these conversations, the “B” word is mentioned. You know, “budget.” Inevitably, a lawyer or law firm marketing/business development professional will tell me that they’re not quite sure if they have the budget—whether at a firm level, a practice group level, or a personal level—to spend on collaborating with an outside writer. Instead, they will explain to me that they could just save that money by writing that content themselves or having their lawyers write it themselves. At this point, I often remind the lawyer or the marketing/business development professional that allocating funds toward their content marketing and thought-leadership marketing efforts, including collaborating with an outside writer, like all other forms of marketing, is an investment. Those lawyers and their firms are spending money up front on a form of marketing in the hopes that by spending that money now they will bring in new client matters soon, and that new business will more than pay for the cost of the marketing efforts required to bring in those new matters. When it comes to collaborating with an outside writer, there are (at least) three ways lawyers can realize a return on their investment—one of which is guaranteed. 1. Write Less, Bill More The first way lawyers can realize an ROI when collaborating with an outside writer, which also happens to be a guaranteed ROI, is that lawyers free themselves up to be able to work on billable client matters. A lawyer who bills $400, $500, or $600 an hour but pays an outside writer $150, $200, or even $250 an hour, is going to realize a return on their investment—likely of at least 2x. By taking the reins on a piece of marketing content, an outside writer frees that lawyer up to service their clients and bill that time. Of course, if the lawyer was forced to write that piece of content themself without assistance from an outside writer, that lawyer would be unable to bill their time to a client. This first ROI is an instant, direct, and guaranteed ROI for lawyers and their law firms. 2. Content Leads to a New Matter The second way lawyers can realize an ROI when collaborating with an outside writer is when a piece of marketing content crafted by that writer directly leads to a new client matter. Perhaps that piece of content is a bylined article in an industry trade publication. Maybe it is a blog post a lawyer or their firm shared on LinkedIn or Twitter. Maybe it is a client alert. Or maybe it is a free guide or checklist. Whatever it is, it so thoroughly—and credibly—addressed a legal issue that a past, current, or prospective client is currently facing or expects to face that they felt compelled to reach out to the lawyer and eventually engage them. Given the fact that it is unlikely, without the assistance of the outside writer, that that particular piece of marketing content would have been written and published when it was (after all, that’s why the writer was hired), there is a direct connection between what a lawyer or law firm paid the writer and the fees the lawyer and law firm could expect from this new client matter. In this instance, it is almost a certainty that the lawyer’s or law firm’s investment in a piece of marketing content crafted by an outside writer will be dwarfed by the fees from the client matter that piece generated. 3. The Cumulative Effect of Content The third (and final, at least for the purposes of this article) way lawyers can realize an ROI when collaborating with an outside writer is what I refer to as the cumulative effect of content. When a lawyer collaborates with an outside writer over a long period of time, that lawyer will amass a body of work that is going to be more expansive than what that lawyer could have created on their own based on the competing demands on their time they face each day. That body of work as a whole is a signal to past, current, and future clients and referral sources that the lawyer has deep knowledge and mastery of the legal issues that arise within their practice area(s). After all, the lawyer wouldn’t have so much to say about those issues (in the form of thought-leadership marketing content) if they didn’t. That body of work creates a perception of thought leadership and mastery. That perception could very well compel clients and referral sources to contact the lawyer about assisting them with their legal issues. In these instances, that body of work led directly to new client matters. But that body of work, composed of blog posts, client alerts, bylined articles, and ebooks (along with perhaps videos, podcast episodes the lawyer has appeared on, and other indicia of their deep legal knowledge), also signals to other key audiences that the lawyer is someone they should be talking to about their area of expertise. Those key audiences might have platforms that lead to new client matters. Perhaps a representative from a trade organization comes across a lawyer’s body of work and thinks the lawyer would make an excellent speaker at an upcoming seminar. And that speaking engagement then leads to a new client matter. Perhaps a reporter from an industry trade publication or national business publication comes across the lawyer’s body of work and decides to interview that lawyer and include quotes from the lawyer in an article they are working on. That published article then leads to a new client matter. In these examples, a particular piece of content did not directly lead to new client matters. But the cumulative effect of that content, the perceptions created by that content, opened up doors for a lawyer that eventually led to new client matters. Investing in the Future of Your Legal Practice and Law Firm Content marketing and thought-leadership marketing, like all forms of marketing, are investments. They are not sunk costs. It is possible, if not probable, that you will realize a return on your investment in a content marketing or thought-leadership marketing program when you collaborate with an outside writer. I’ve identified three ways you might realize such a return. Remember, when you are contemplating investing in your content marketing and thought-leadership marketing programs, particularly when collaborating with an outside writer, you’re making an investment in the future of your legal practice and your law firm.

In today’s legal landscape, marked by rapid change and high demands on time, the integration and effective use of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems is not just a technological upgrade but a critical pivot towards operational excellence and client service enhancement. Overcoming the inherent resistance to change in legal environments is essential, as the successful adoption of CRM systems directly correlates to a law firm’s efficiency, client relationship management and ultimately, its competitive edge. Embracing a strategic approach that prioritizes value, simplicity and efficiency is key to unlocking the potential of CRM systems. This approach can transform them from mere administrative tools to indispensable assets for business development and client engagement. Here, we outline six pivotal strategies to facilitate this transformation and elevate CRM adoption among attorneys, ensuring that your firm not only keeps pace with the industry’s evolution but leads it. 1. Communicate the Direct Benefits Strategy: Explicitly explain how the CRM system benefits the individual lawyers, not just the organization. Implementation: Conduct workshops or one-on-one sessions demonstrating how CRM usage can streamline their marketing and business development efforts, ultimately leading to personal success and client satisfaction. Simplify and Personalize the User Experience Strategy: Opt for CRM systems with user-friendly interfaces and customizable dashboards that align with the daily needs of lawyers. Implementation: Choose CRMs that can integrate seamlessly with other systems lawyers use daily, like billing and document management, to create a centralized, efficient workspace. 3. Demonstrate Ease of Accessing Valuable Insights Strategy: Show lawyers how they can independently derive valuable insights from CRM data with minimal effort. Implementation: Regularly schedule sessions with marketing professionals to assist lawyers in updating and extracting relevant contact information and insights from the CRM. 4. Streamline Sharing of Appointments and Activities Strategy: Select a CRM system that facilitates easy sharing of appointments and activities, allowing marketing teams to provide proactive support. Implementation: Implement features where marketing professionals can access attorneys’ schedules to prepare strategic materials and insights for upcoming client or prospect meetings. 5. Ensure Data Integrity Strategy: Maintain accurate and up-to-date CRM data to ensure reliability. Implementation: Establish a regular data cleaning process, which can be outsourced if necessary, to maintain the CRM’s integrity and usefulness. 6. Redefine CRM Success Strategy: Shift away from traditional models that heavily rely on attorneys for data entry. Implementation: Adopt newer CRM approaches where the bulk of data entry and management is handled by support staff or automated systems, reducing the burden on attorneys and focusing their involvement on strategic input and relationship management. Conclusion: A Value-Driven Approach The cornerstone of successful CRM adoption lies in the “value exchange.” By making it straightforward for attorneys to contribute and extract value from the CRM, law firms can foster a culture of active participation. While the journey to full CRM adoption is gradual, the investment in these modern strategies is crucial for long-term benefits, enhancing both the efficiency of lawyers and the overall success of the firm.

Following up on my recent piece about navigating the complex landscape of 2024 law firm rate setting, I’d like to delve deeper into the symbiotic relationship between law firms and their clients, especially when discussing rates and value. Rate Setting Isn’t Adversarial At its core, rate setting is not about drawing a line in the sand against your client. It’s a strategic process that aligns the firm’s value proposition with market dynamics and client expectations. When approached collaboratively, it allows both parties to benefit mutually. A well-thought-out price strategy ensures firms deliver optimum service while clients feel they’re getting their money’s worth. Open Conversations Tighten Bonds A transparent discussion about rates and the firm’s value can bring them closer to their clients. By opening this communication channel, firms can better understand clients’ needs, expectations, and reservations. Clients, in turn, appreciate the honesty and effort, leading to enhanced trust and loyalty. It’s not just about numbers; it’s about mutual respect and understanding. Cutting Rates Isn’t Always Beneficial It may seem counterintuitive, but a reduced rate doesn’t always translate to added value for the client. While initial cost savings might appear attractive, they can sometimes come at the expense of quality, efficiency, or expertise. Over time, this could lead to suboptimal results, potentially costing the client more money and missed opportunities. Towards a Value-Centric Model The conversation needs to shift from mere pricing to the value delivered. Consider introducing the concept of Legal Service Return on Investment (LROI). It’s not just about the hours logged; it’s about the tangible and intangible benefits clients derive from those hours. This might include the successful resolution of a case, the prevention of potential legal pitfalls, or even the peace of mind of knowing they have expert counsel on their side. A Legal Service ROI emphasizes the impact and outcomes rather than just the input. It challenges firms to evaluate and demonstrate their worth continuously, ensuring they remain aligned with client expectations and market dynamics. This innovative approach to value can foster a more collaborative and beneficial relationship between firms and their clients. A Glimpse into the Future As we stand on the brink of the AI age, the concept of value in the legal realm is set to undergo significant transformation. In my upcoming blog, I’ll explore how AI might redefine pricing models and what it means for law firms and their clients. But one thing remains constant: the pursuit of genuine value. Whether through human expertise or machine intelligence, the goal is to deliver unparalleled service and results. To understand more about the value-driven approach to legal services and how it can revolutionize your firm’s relationship with its clients, stay tuned. Think innovatively, and let’s journey together into the future of law firm pricing. 

Ring ... ring ... ring ... ring ... ring ... Goodbye. Chalk up another lost client to your front desk. How seriously have you invested time and money into your intake department? Before you answer that, let’s step back a minute and consider the story of the young fisherboy. This angler grew up on the river with his father learning the art and craft of fishing. His dad would catch the fish and let his boy zealously reel them in, one by one. Eventually, the boy accepted the process of taking the rod from his father each time he had one hooked. Eventually, one day his father stopped going fishing with him and depended on his son to bring home dinner. The boy soon realized that he could no longer rely on his old process of depending on his father’s ability to set the hook. He had to learn to set the hook himself. I implore you, teach your staff how to set the hook. Stop treating your website leads like they’re referrals. The Problem With Referrals There’s no doubt that referrals are the best possible lead source. It is said that the average company generates 65% of its new business from referrals (NYT). Furthermore, your clients are said to be four times more likely to hire you when they are referred from a friend or from someone they trust. However, there are two major difficulties with referrals: You have to pay out a hefty sum at the end of the case (for a contingency fee-based lawyer); and There just aren’t enough of them. If you have accepted those two facts, you have likely considered Internet marketing for your law firm. The process of riding a bull is not the same process as riding a bike. Each requires its own unique techniques and training (although I can’t personally say I’ve ridden a bull). With Internet marketing, you should avoid applying your referral processes and mindset when handling your lead intake. Otherwise you risk damaging your law firm’s bottom line. A person who calls you after finding your website on the Internet, with no prior knowledge of your firm, has no personal loyalty or ties to you or your great firm. In fact, they have no reason to hire you other than what is said in those first few minutes when they call in. If you don’t have someone willing to greet them with exceptional service and a sales mentality, you will lose out to a law firm that does. Referrals vs. Internet Leads Here are some key points to keep in mind: Referral: A referred client will leave you a voicemail and wait for your return call. Internet: An internet lead will move on. Referral: A referred client will punch buttons through a phone tree in an effort to talk to you. Internet: An internet lead will hang up and call someone they can talk to immediately. Referral: A referred client may overlook your tired, disinterested intake “professional.” Internet: An internet lead assumes your intake “professional” is a reflection of your entire firm and representation ability. They move on. I strongly urge you to stop treating your website leads like they’re referrals. You are costing your firm tens of thousands in case fees and are wasting significant marketing dollars. Consider applying a portion of your advertising toward your intake team. Hire rock stars and offer ongoing training and coaching. Your intake process is one of your most important functions to growing your case load on the Internet.  The fishing was good; it was the catching that was bad. —A.K. Best

According to a national survey, the number 1 fear people have is speaking in public. Fear of dying is ranked number 7. So just remember when you attend your next funeral that more people would rather be in the coffin than giving the eulogy. I realize speaking is not for everyone, but if you enjoy speaking or educating people in a group, then speaking and seminars can be one of the best ways to grow your practice. There are very few practice areas I can think of whose marketing efforts would not benefit from participating in some form of education-based seminars or presentations. Giving a seminar or presentation can give you massive credibility, if it’s done correctly. It is also a proven lead generator, if the follow-up is efficient. For those litigators and trial attorneys, giving a seminar is old hat. You educate your juries on a regular basis and often some of the best public speakers I’ve seen are the trial attorneys. For the rest of us, there are many options to select from. Here are seven common ways you can implement speaking to generate more clients for your law firm: Give a public seminar or presentation Give a private, client-only seminar in your office Give an after-dinner presentation to a group of clients brought together by one of your referral partners Give a presentation over a conference bridge line (teleseminar or webinar) Be one of the experts on a panel with affiliated professionals (a banker, another attorney, a CPA or financial advisor) Give a keynote speech to a trade association Be the moderator/facilitator of a panel discussion There are three basic types of seminars you can participate in: Wholesale Seminars This is where you work with a referral partner who sets up a meeting with his or her existing clients and you speak to their clients and educate them about what you do. A common example of this is when an estate planning attorney works with a local financial advisor and speaks to the advisor’s clients on asset protection strategies. One of our estate planning clients used this type of seminar very successfully when he teamed up with a well-known certified financial planner. The advisor had a large client base and they spent a few thousand dollars each month on promoting the events via ads in local newspapers. They held most of the seminars for two hours on a Saturday morning and usually had 30 to 60 people show up. Each person spoke for about an hour. We helped our client implement a strong follow-up program and by the second event he was signing up 30-40% of the attendees for a free estate planning consultation! He was able to sign up over 60% of those people as new clients with an average fee of $3,500. When you do the math, if they only had 30 people show up per event and only 30% of them signed up for a free consult (9 people) and he closed 60% (that’s 5 new clients) at $3,500 each, that means that particular seminar was worth $17,500 in new work for the firm. Now multiply that by one to two seminars per month and you can quickly see how this can add up. Retail Seminars This is where you set up a public seminar (this can be free or paid) and you invite people to attend and listen to your presentation. For example, a small business attorney can invite local business owners to attend a half-day seminar on common legal issues faced by growing companies. I’m not sure why, but many attorneys seem to do this kind of seminar for free. I’m more in favor of charging a reasonable fee, as long as you are going to provide good content for attendees. This not only keeps out the tire kickers and your competitors, but also generally attracts a more serious person to your event. A retail or public seminar is usually the most expensive to conduct because you must market them heavily to generate enough attendees to make it worth your while. If you select to conduct retail seminars I recommend you either do a series (perhaps one topic each quarter) or you hold the same seminar multiple times per month or year. This is the model we use for our Rainmaker Retreat two-day law firm marketing boot camps for attorneys. We hold the same event 10-12 times per year across the country. Referral Partner Seminars This kind of seminar involves speaking to a group of potential or existing referral partners in a group setting. For example, you set up a meeting of CPAs and speak to them about how to generate cross-referrals with your law firm and how the two professions can work seamlessly together to better serve the client. Alternatively, you go to your local CPA society and offer to give a seminar at an upcoming meeting about a topic of interest to CPAs. As someone who makes their living from speaking, I know it can be a difficult, yet rewarding form of marketing. Yet, I always have attorneys come up to me afterwards and say something like this, “I gave a speech once and I didn’t get any new business from it.” Well, if you find yourself among the skeptics, here are some critical law firm marketing tips to remember so you can achieve better results from your speaking and presenting efforts. Tip 1: Only Speak to Decision Makers The first important tip is to always speak to the right group, and the right group are decision makers, not gate keepers! Make sure you get in front of the right group—people who can either refer you clients or who are highly likely to need, want and be able to afford your services. You can best accomplish this by asking the following questions: What is your average attendee like? What are the typical job titles of attendees? What is the size of the average attendance? What percentage of your usual attendees are decision makers? What kinds of topics have had the best turnout? Who has recently spoken to your group and what did they speak about? How did that go? Tip 2: Educate Your Audience Make sure your talk is about something they care about. Make it educational. Do not stand up there and spout legal jargon and legal theory or sections and codes because that’s not what people want, unless your audience is other attorneys. Most audiences want practical, useful information they can take away and immediately implement. Give them lots of practical, useful information that will help them. You may say, “Well, I don’t want to give away the store. I don’t want to give them so much information that they can do it themselves.” Please understand, if you could give them enough information where they could do it themselves, the people who actually would do it for themselves and not hire you are not good prospects for you. You want to target the people who have the money to hire an attorney and do not want to do it for themselves because they either understand the risks of doing so or simply do not have the time, energy, effort or expertise needed to successfully complete the task. You do not want to hire tire kickers or “do it yourself-errs” because they typically will only hire you if you have an absolutely ridiculously low price. At the Rainmaker Retreats, we actually follow the opposite principle. We purposefully try to overwhelm our audience with so much practical, useful, step-by-step information. Why? Because we want them to walk out of the room with so many great ideas that they don’t know where to start so they will turn to us and hire us to implement a proven law firm marketing plan for them. You must recognize that not everyone in every audience is in your target market and you need to qualify them as much as they qualify you! You want to ensure they need you, they want you and they can afford your prices. If you don’t want to attract “yellow page clients” then don’t charge yellow page prices. Tip 3: Obtain All the Attendees’ Contact Information Ideally, you want the attendees’ contact information before they ever come to your event. If you are speaking for an association, simply ask for it (be specific and ask for their first and last name, email and phone in an excel file), sometimes they will give it to you and other times they won’t. Either way, have a plan for obtaining the attendees’ contact information at your presentation. If the conference organizer will not give it to you, simply do a giveaway for a prize. You can try to be a little creative in your giveaways without going overboard like a bestselling book, a gift card to a local restaurant, a digital camera, a set of golf clubs, a coupon for a massage, tickets to a play at a theater, or a nice bottle of wine. Simply have them pass their business cards to the front or pass out 3×5 cards and have them fill out their full name, phone and email address and pass it to the front. Do a drawing for the prize at the end of your seminar. Obtaining their contact information is critical for success in speaking and seminar marketing. Tip 4: The Fortune Is in the Follow-up If you are a regular reader of this column, you have heard me say this before: the fortune is in the follow-up! The number one reason why lawyers don’t achieve great results from speaking and seminars is because they don’t have a written follow-up system. You must develop a follow-up strategy before your talk. Let’s say your follow-up strategy is a series of emails, phone calls and maybe a letter or postcard. Your follow-up system would include 4 emails, 3 phone calls and 1 letter. Email 1 would be sent within 24 hours post-seminar. It would be a thank you email with an offer for a free consultation, a special report or an audio CD. Phone Call 1 would be made by your staff and would be made within 24 hours post-seminar. The call would be to thank them for attending and make the same free offer that’s made in the email. Letter 1 would be sent out the next day (they should receive it within 3 days if they are local) and the letter would repeat what you have written in the email. All of this would happen in the first 24 hours after the seminar. Some of you will question if that’s too aggressive an approach. Let me assure you, it is not. A quick follow-up system like this demonstrates a high level of professionalism and commitment to your attendees. It tells them that you care about them and most of them will be impressed that you followed up so quickly. Email 2 is sent three to five days after the event. Remind them about the seminar they attended and invite them to sign up for a consultation or your newsletter. Email 3 might offer a brief tip about the topic you spoke about: top 10 tips or recommended resources, etc. Every person should be followed up with at least three phone calls before you stop trying to reach them. Every attendee should receive at least 5-7 emails and 1-2 printed letters from your law firm. If you use this kind of follow-up system, you will find significantly better results from your seminars and marketing efforts. Make sure you have a follow-up system in place before your presentation and make sure you have your staff doing most of the work. Your focus is on becoming a powerful Rainmaker for your law firm, serving your clients with excellence and bringing in new clients.

It’s a common sentiment, you think you’ve done everything possible to build your law business… You have worked hard on building a business that represents your ideals. You have built relationships in your industry. You have a great office space that you have spent time decorating to make your clients feel comfortable. You have hired an all-star staff. You have advertisements in relevant marketing channels. You have created a beautiful website that clearly depicts your firm’s purpose, but you still aren’t signing the cases that you want. This is a frustrating reality for many legal professionals, who have spent an unmeasurable amount of time and energy making their business the best it can be, but are not seeing the expected results. A simple area many professionals tend to ignore is the quality of the images they are posting on their site. In a society so hyper-focused on image and a marketing landscape where consumers have to digest thousands of images per day, your photos have to be top-notch, or you are wasting your time. Marcel Just, director of the Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging at Carnegie Mellon University, explains how important images are to digital marketing in an interview for Nieman Reports, saying: “Processing print isn’t something the human brain was built for. The printed word is a human artifact. It’s very convenient and it’s worked very well for us for 5,000 years, but it’s an invention of human beings. By contrast Mother Nature has built into our brain our ability to see the visual world and interpret it.” —Marcel Just, Director of the Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging, Carnegie Mellon University Professional Law Firm Photography Tips Be Personal Stock images always seem like a great idea at the time. They are cost effective, professional, and a stock image exists for almost any situation you can think of. However, stock images are impersonal, and many fall into the fake or cheesy categories. Stock images don’t give a genuine representation of the people behind your firm, making you seem untrustworthy, which is the last thing any law firm wants. Images of actual people sitting in your law firm will always win out. Be Interesting Your clients are inundated with images through media outlets that flood our inboxes, mailboxes, and social feeds. If your image does not spark any emotion in the viewer, it is worthless. I’m not necessarily talking about an intense emotional connection, but some type of spark that will keep your visitor interested. If your firm is involved in the community, give visitors a glimpse of your staff working hard to help locals. If you have a big case going on or an interview, snap a behind-the-scenes image so clients feel like they get the inside scoop on your work. Be Specific I have a background in retail marketing; nothing drives me crazier than an image with no subject and distracting background clutter. Make sure that your consumer knows exactly how your image relates to the topic they are reading about. To achieve this, you can blur out the background slightly or take images with a crisp clean background. Be Current Keeping out-of-date photos on your site signals to visitors that you don’t pay attention to detail and don’t care about being current. These red flags signal to your consumer that you may treat their case the same way. One of the easiest ways to tell if your photos are outdated is by examining the fashion and style choices made in the photos. A good rule of thumb is to update attorney profile images every year or two, and update images when you hire or lose staff members. In addition to the standard photos, continually post images from current events happening at your firm. Be High Quality The final and most important aspect of any photo is the quality. No matter how personal, interesting, specific, or current your images are, if they are of sub-par quality, you might as well not even have them on your site. A low quality image on a website demonstrates that the creators are apathetic to quality overall and will likely be apathetic to the quality of a client’s case. The best way to solve this problem is to hire a professional photographer to come to your business and take photos of your staff and your space. Types of Images to Include On Your Law Firm Website Smiling headshots of staff Group shots of staff inside or near your building Photos of staff interacting with clients Photos of your office(s) (Google offers Business View, a service where a professional photographer creates a virtual tour of your office the same way Google Street View does. This is a trust signal for Google and for your clients.) Behind-the-scenes shots Photos of staff collaborating with each other Images/videos of clients for testimonials

How do you help a client who doesn’t know what’s best for them and focuses on the wrong area? I work with hundreds of law firms every year and one of the most common requests I hear from attorneys is, “I need more leads.” Yet when I inquire further into the specifics of their situation, I often find that lead generation isn’t their primary problem—it’s lead conversion. Let me explain. I was recently speaking with a bankruptcy attorney who claimed he needed more leads to build his practice. I asked him approximately how many leads were coming into his law firm each month. Needless to say, I was astounded when he informed me his firm’s marketing was consistently generating in excess of 100 to 150 new leads every month! Even with modest conversion rates you should be able to generate at least $500,000 annually with this many leads. Yet he was experiencing serious cash flow issues. I kindly told him I did not believe his biggest issue was lead generation; it was lead conversion—converting more browsers into buyers. I walked him through our Rainmaker Lead Conversion System and how it could help him fix his follow-up and convert more prospects into paying clients. Unfortunately, either I did not do a sufficient job of justifying my response or he did not believe me because he persisted in the belief that he simply needed more “qualified leads” and all his problems would be solved. Lead conversion is the most overlooked area at most law firms and it has the potential to significantly increase your revenues this year. Imagine the impact on your firm’s revenue if you improved the rate of conversion by just 10%, much less the 20-40% increase we have seen when using a formal lead conversion system. I often ask attorneys about their closing rate—the number of appointments they turn into paying clients—and they invariably say that it’s “very high” or “excellent,” but careful examination tells a different story. I find the majority of attorneys significantly overestimate their closing ratio. Just like practicing law, converting leads into paying clients is a skill that takes practice, but you need to understand how to track your data and analyze it. Three Major Areas to Analyze There are many variables you can consider if your practice isn’t generating the revenues you want, but after nearly a decade of specializing in helping law firms improve their lead generation and lead conversion strategies, I have found there are really three major areas that tell most of the story: 1. Lead Generation This is the system of attracting new potential clients to your law firm. You can use both online and offline strategies. Online or internet related strategies include a website, blog, social media and search engine optimization. Offline marketing strategies include referrals from current and former clients, monthly newsletters, building relationships with potential referral partners, networking, speaking and seminars. It’s important to know that lead generation is the second most expensive thing you will have in your law firm, the first being payroll. You must take a systematic approach to lead generation. Without this, you are reduced to sitting in your office waiting for the phone to ring or a referral to walk in, which is not a good place to be. 2. Lead Conversion This is your ability to turn leads into paying clients and is what I will focus on in this article. 3. Client Retention How to keep your paying clients coming back for more and/or referring your firm to everyone they know with a similar problem to theirs. The first step in lead conversion is to develop a “universal lead definition” (ULD)—what precisely is counted as a lead, who counts the leads, how you track the leads, and what does not constitute a legitimate lead. We teach our clients that a lead must meet all three of these criteria: Someone who has never done business with you before (versus a repeat client). Everyone who contacts the firm via email, phone, social media, personal referral, internet, networking event, seminar, etc. They express an interest in your services. In order to build a financially successful law firm, you must be committed to tracking every single lead and following up with them religiously! Far too many attorneys only track the appointments that show up (and if truth be told, they are not even very good at doing that) or how many of the people they meet with in person who sign up as a paying client at the initial consultation. What they don’t recognize is that is only the fourth stage of lead conversion and there are five stages. Here are the five stages of lead conversion for law firms: Number of leads into the top of the funnel Number of leads that turn into appointments Number of appointments who show up Number of appointments who sign up at the initial consultation Number of appointments who sign up later No lead conversion system is complete without tracking all five stages. How many of your leads turn into actual appointments? How many of those appointments actually show up? How many of those people who show up sign up at the initial consultation? And how many people sign up later down the road? Each of these numbers is critical to track because if you know what your conversion rates are at each stage then you can determine where your biggest challenges are and develop a plan to improve. The greatest value of a true lead conversion system is that it gives you direct insight into the actual state of your company and allows you to efficiently automate the follow-up process with dozens and even hundreds of leads. We have helped our clients compete with and beat much larger law firms simply by creating an exceptional follow-up system. Lead generation too often comes down to a firm’s financial ability to “throw money at the problem,” but a lead conversion system can level the playing field and give small firms a true unique competitive advantage. What Is an Acceptable Conversion Rate? Conversion rates can differ widely, depending upon your practice area, but in general the lower your average client is “worth” to your firm the higher your conversion must be in order to run a successful firm. For example, if you practice consumer bankruptcy and the average chapter 7 client pays you $1,500 to handle their case, you must have a higher conversion ratio than the business litigation attorney whose average client pays them $50,000 to $100,000 in legal fees. For consumer attorneys you need at least a 15-20% conversion rate to run a decent practice. This means for every 100 leads your marketing generates, you need to sign up a minimum of 15-20 people. Consumer firms with a comprehensive lead conversion system often experience double this rate, which means they can be very profitable. Think about it this way: if you generate 50 leads per month and close 10% at an average fee of $5,000 per client, that means you made $25,000 in gross revenues (assuming 100% collection rates). However, if you increase that conversion rate to 20% you would double your revenues—with the same amount of leads! The key point is that even small increases in conversion rates can make a significant difference in your revenues. How to Increase Your Conversion Rate The key to increasing your conversion rate is to fix your follow-up! This is another area that many attorneys think they are doing a good job, but upon further investigation I often find massive gaps in their follow-up process. Too many firms follow the approach of “only taking one bite out of the apple,” that is to say they try to get the prospect to retain at the initial consultation (or worse, over the telephone), and if they do not first succeed then they give up and go on to the next person, without ever trying again to get that business. This is a major mistake! When someone doesn’t retain you at the first meeting, rarely does the problem that brought them to you go away on its own accord. Understand that when they don’t hire you, they are not saying “no,” they are usually saying, “not yet” or “I’m not ready.” But circumstances can change and sometimes very quickly. All of the sudden the legal issue goes from the back burner to the front of their mind and retaining an attorney becomes the most important thing in their world. If you have a system that helps you stay connected with them via email or periodic phone calls, then they will more than likely retain you when they are ready versus going to one of your competitors. However, if you fail to fix your follow-up, when they are ready they will likely start the search all over again and you will likely lose this client forever. Let me give you a simple illustration. When an attorney calls me to get some ideas on how to market their law firm, I often end up inviting them to attend one of our Rainmaker legal marketing seminars, but often the dates of our seminar conflict with their schedules. It’s not that they don’t want to go, it’s “not yet” or perhaps they are not mentally ready to make the jump to the next level. Either way, if I depended on my memory to follow up with them some time in the future, we would be in serious trouble! Instead, we have implemented a comprehensive follow-up system that includes multiple keep-in-touch emails and automated reminders that help us remember to call that person weeks or even months after the initial call. In addition, we are committed to sending out a newsletter every single month and have been doing so for years. I regularly hear from new clients how they have been receiving my newsletter for 5 to 10 years and finally were ready to sign up and start working with us. Talk about a long sales cycle! It’s a good thing I don’t depend solely on people like that to build my company. The point here is if you have a comprehensive system that follows up with potential clients for long periods of time, you will reap the benefits. If you are interested in how a lead conversion system can help your firm fix your follow-up and convert more browsers into buyers, I invite you to call our office and set up time for us to talk. 

Most law firms have a contact form on their website. Far fewer have anything that can actually have a conversation with a visitor at 11 p.m. or when the attorney is in court or at a family event. This disconnect is the problem that live chat helps close, and after working with law firms on their websites for over two decades, we can say it’s one of the most valuable features a firm can add. This guide is for firms trying to figure out which live chat service makes sense for them. Below we walk through why chat matters now more than it used to, the four types of services available, what to look for, what to expect with pricing, and a short list of the providers we see doing it best. Why Live Chat Matters for Law Firms A 2011 study published in Harvard Business Review by James Oldroyd and his colleagues at MIT and InsideSales.com remains the most cited research on this subject, and the findings have held up across many follow-up studies since. Firms that responded to a web inquiry within an hour were nearly seven times more likely to qualify the lead than firms that waited just sixty minutes longer, and more than sixty times more likely than firms that waited 24 hours or more. (See “The Short Life of Online Sales Leads,” HBR, March 2011.) The lesson is straightforward: the value of an inbound lead decays fast, and the firms that respond first usually win. Live chat is one of the best ways to drop the response time down to zero. Someone visits a law firm’s website in the middle of the night researching divorce attorneys, or on their lunch break trying to understand a wage garnishment letter, but instead of getting a contact form and a promise of a callback, they get a real conversation. That conversation can answer basic questions, screen the matter, and book a consultation in a single interaction. Once a consultation is on the calendar, the chances that the prospect keeps shopping the competition drop substantially, and the odds they actually show up to the meeting go up. There is also a generational dynamic worth pointing out. The oldest millennials are now 45, and they have spent their adult lives texting rather than calling. For many people, especially in emotionally loaded practice areas, picking up the phone to call a stranger about their problem is genuinely intimidating. Chat lowers that barrier by letting the prospective client feel out the firm (how responsive you are, how the staff sounds, whether you handle their type of case) before committing to a full conversation. The good news is that all of the chat options below are easy to install. They run as a small piece of code that can be added to your website within minutes. The harder choice, and the one this guide is built around, is which type of service makes sense for your firm and getting it properly configured for success. Types of Live Chat Services There are four main categories of live chat service. Managed Live Chat Services Specialty companies like Blazeo (formerly Apex Chat), Ngage, Ruby and Juvo Leads professionally staff live chat specifically for law firms. Their employees are trained on the legal market, they work from a script your firm provides, and they operate around the clock. Optionally, when a chat meets certain criteria you’ve defined, say, a personal injury inquiry involving a hospitalization, they can warm-transfer the chat directly to a phone call with you or your staff for immediate follow-up. For firms that don’t have in-house staff to field chats, this is often the easiest and most turn-key option. The main downsides are cost and personality. These services typically bill either per chat or per qualified lead and the conversations will feel less personal than if someone at your firm were running them. However, in practice, the around-the-clock availability and not having to dedicate in-house staff usually outweigh both concerns, especially for small firms and for fast-moving practice areas where a missed lead at 9 p.m. has committed to another firm by the morning. AI Chatbot / Automated Services The boom in AI over the last few years has produced a parallel boom in legal-specific chatbot services. With AI chatbots, response time is never a problem; the bot is always on, trained on your firm’s website, intake materials, and scripts, and is configured to handle basic intake and triage. Pricing typically comes in well under a managed live chat service, which is part of the appeal. The downsides are perception and capability. For a prospective client who is already stressed about a legal problem, opening a chat and immediately encountering an obvious AI can feel like the first step in being processed by a system rather than helped by a person. It’s the same feeling people get when they hit an automated phone tree and start mashing zero. The capability concern is more serious: the bots have to be tightly trained and strictly scoped. We absolutely do not want a law firm chatbot doing what the Chevrolet of Watsonville chatbot cheerfully did in 2023, when a user convinced it to sell a 2024 Tahoe for $1. For a law firm, the equivalent risk is a bot that wanders into giving substantive legal information, or worse, advice. This is why we only recommend providers that specialize in working with law firms; most of the necessary guardrails are baked in from the start. Chat Software Operated by In-House Staff The third category is just chat software, run by your own staff. Tools like LiveChat, Olark or HubSpot’s free chat widget cost comparatively little, and the chats are handled by people who actually know the firm: what attorneys are available, how the intake process works, the personality of the place. This delivers the most personal client experience of any option. The downside is in implementation and operation. Someone has to actually be watching the chat queue and able to respond quickly, which means a dedicated receptionist or a clearly assigned role. A chat that sits unanswered is worse than no chat at all, because you’ve signaled to the visitor exactly how responsive your firm is. In-house chat is also only available during business hours; most software defaults to either being invisible or displaying a contact form when nobody’s logged in. This works, but doesn’t capture the after-hours visitor in the way live coverage would. Hybrid Approach The categories above can be combined, and some firms and providers do exactly that. An AI-enabled chatbot can initially gather basic information and then triage the inquiry to a live human (either in-house or with a managed service) when the inquiry meets thresholds defined by the firm. Another option is to staff the chat in-house during the day and switch to a managed service during closed business hours. Key Features to Look For When you’re considering chat providers, here are the features and characteristics we’ve found to be the most important to law firms. Law firm focus. Companies that specifically serve law firms can hit the ground running to save you time and avoid mistakes. They have script templates, intake workflows, and guardrails built into their onboarding process. Security and compliance. Encryption is pretty well standard these days. But, depending on your practice area, you may want to look for HIPAA compliance and other security assurances if potential clients may be sharing medical or other sensitive information. Call transfer or warm handoff. The ability to define criteria that allow chats to be escalated directly to an attorney or firm staff greatly increases the chances of securing a meeting with the client or nipping trouble in the bud. CRM integration. Integration with your firm’s existing software such as Clio Grow, MyCase, Smokeball, and PracticePanther will ensure that leads and chat transcripts land in your system and will save you from having to check a separate inbox. 24/7 availability. Around-the-clock availability increases the chances of booking a meeting, especially in practice areas where inquiry often happens at off-hours. Calendar integration. The ability for the chat operator, human or AI, to schedule appointments on the correct calendar in real-time will keep everyone on the same page. Bilingual support. Spanish-language chat (and other languages) may be valuable for firms in immigration, criminal defense, personal injury, and many regional markets. Pro Tips From Our Experience A few things separate the firms that get real value from chat and the ones that get frustrated and eventually bail. Take the time to script and train the service properly. Chat may be the first interactive impression a potential client has of your firm so it’s worth investing real effort to get it set up correctly. For managed services, this means working through their full onboarding rather than rushing it. For AI services, this means feeding them not just your website, but your intake protocols, scheduling rules, escalation criteria, and the kinds of questions you actually get from clients. The providers we recommend all have onboarding teams whose job is to do exactly this so make sure to use them. Limit scope. Unless your chat is being run by knowledgeable in-house staff, restrict the topics the chat service can engage on. Initial screening, conflict-check basics, scheduling, and simple customer service questions like office hours and parking. That’s it. Live chat, especially AI-operated chat, should never be answering substantive legal questions or anything that resembles legal advice. The script should be explicit about deferring those questions to an attorney. Test, test and test again. Every reputable provider will let you stress-test the service before going live. Run through realistic scenarios; throw curveballs at it; recruit staff and a few friends to do the same. You will likely find issues that your initial configuration didn’t anticipate. Review transcripts regularly. This is the single most common mistake we see. A firm sets up chat, it works for the first few weeks, and then nobody ever looks at it again. This is not one of those As Seen on TV Rotisserie Ovens you can set and forget. Once a service is operating in the real world it will encounter scenarios you didn’t dream up, and the only way to catch problems is to spend some time reading the transcripts on a regular basis. This is where you’ll find refinements that can make a big difference such as the chat operator not following the escalation rules, missed scheduling opportunities, and language or tone that’s landing wrong. Recommended Live Chat Services for Law Firms Here is a short list of chat providers we often work with and recommend to our clients. The right fit for your firm will depend heavily on your practice area, volume, and budget. Blazeo (formerly Apex Chat). A long-running managed live chat service that has been in the legal market for years. Blazeo has expanded well beyond chat; it now positions itself as a full lead conversion platform with live chat, AI chatbots, voice call center support, appointment setting, SMS, and even retainer signing. Offers full-human and AI/Human hybrid options. Ngage Live Chat. A managed, legal-specific service with encryption, video chat options, and strong analytics and lead reporting. Ngage has also been in the legal space for a long time. Ruby. Most known for receptionist services, Ruby has extended their friendly brand into chat. Pricing scales by usage and many integrations are available. If you already use Ruby, you can add on chat services at a discounted rate. Client Chat Live. Built specifically for law firms since 2008, with a focus on B2C practice areas like personal injury, mass tort, and criminal defense. Juvo Leads. Live operators only (no AI). Strong reputation in PI and criminal defense. Intaker. An AI-first option for firms that want automated intake at a lower monthly cost than a fully staffed service. Features an attractive video option to customize the chat widget throughout the website and increase engagement. What to Expect on Pricing Managed chat services typically charge on a per chat basis ($10-20/chat) or per qualified lead basis ($30-40/lead), often with a monthly minimum that puts most firms in the range of roughly $150 to $500 per month. AI powered bots also charge on a per chat basis and sometimes have a cost component based on the volume of website traffic. AI enabled services usually come in around half the cost of managed chat. Chat software operated by in-house staff usually runs around $20-$50 per month for the license but requires your staff’s time. An additional thing to note is that most managed and AI chat services will not charge for spam chats and those asking for just basic information such as a phone number. However, this should be clarified with the provider. Closing Thoughts The right live chat service depends on your firm’s size, your practice area, your budget, and whether you’d rather have someone else handle the conversations or keep them in-house. Either way, for most practice areas, live chat is one of the few tools that can capture and convert leads while you are actually billing hours, and the firms that set it up properly are getting solid returns from it year after year. Key Takeaways Responding to a lead within an hour makes them far more likely to convert, and live chat cuts that response time to zero. There are four types of chat services: managed/staffed chat, AI chatbots, in-house staffed software, and hybrid combinations. Managed services and AI chatbots offer round-the-clock coverage, while in-house chat is more personal but limited to business hours. Look for providers with legal-industry experience, strong security, CRM integration, and warm call transfer options. Pricing ranges from $20 to $50 per month for in-house software up to $150 to $500 per month for managed services, with AI chatbots falling in between. Ongoing success requires proper training, a limited chat scope, thorough testing, and regular transcript reviews.

If you are the CMO or marketing director of an Am Law 200 firm, you have almost certainly sat in a meeting in the last six months where someone asked, “Are we showing up in AI??” and you have almost certainly looked down at a report that did not actually answer the question. This is not a failure of effort on the part of your in-house team or agency. It is a lack of measurement framework. The metrics that prove whether generative engine optimization is working for your firm do not live inside Google Analytics, and most generative engine optimization agencies are not tracking them at the level of rigor an Am Law 200 firm needs. This article lays out what real GEO reporting looks like, the three metrics that actually measure progress, and the questions to ask any agency before you sign. Why Your Current Analytics Dashboard Won’t Tell You If GEO Is Working Here is the structural problem. GA4 measures clicks to your website. It does not measure the growing share of users who get a complete answer from ChatGPT, Perplexity, or a Google AI Overview and never click through at all. Traditional rank trackers tell you where you rank organically. They do not tell you whether your firm is being cited as a source in the AI-generated answer that sits above the organic results. The result is a measurement vacuum. This is not a data availability problem. The data exists. The problem is that capturing it requires a different reporting architecture than what most agencies are set up to deliver. Activity Reporting vs. Outcome Reporting The clearest way to evaluate whether your reporting is keeping pace with the search landscape is to look at what they are measuring. Activity reporting tells you what the agency did: pages optimized, content published, schema markup added, backlinks earned. These are inputs. They are real work, and they matter, but they are not evidence that the work moved the needle. Outcome reporting tells you what changed in the market: how often your firm is cited in AI answers, how your visibility compares to named competitors, which practice area queries return your firm as a source and which do not. These are outputs. They are the only data points that tell a managing partner whether the firm is winning or losing. If the report you receive every month is heavy on the first and silent on the second, the engagement is producing motion without proof. The Three Metrics That Actually Measure GEO Progress Three signals together determine whether your firm is gaining or losing ground in generative search. These are the metrics 9Sail tracks on an ongoing basis for Am Law 200 and other law firm clients, and the metrics you should expect from any true AI visibility reporting. AI Citation Frequency AI Citation Frequency is how often your firm’s content, website, or attorneys are cited as a source in AI-generated answers across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Claude, and other generative platforms. This matters because the overwhelming majority of AI summaries cite three or more sources. There are consistent citation slots available in the AI answers your prospects are reading. Tracking citation frequency means running a defined set of 50 to 200 practice area-specific prompts across target platforms on a recurring basis and recording whether your firm appears. This is an ongoing monitoring workflow, not a one-time or infrequent audit. One important nuance for legal: citation rate and mention rate are different signals. An AI model may pull content directly from your firm’s website and strip the firm name from the answer. Both need to be tracked separately, because they imply different optimization responses. Share of Model Voice The percentage of relevant AI-generated answers that include your firm, measured against a defined set of competitor firms in your practice areas and markets. This metric translates GEO performance into language firm leadership already uses. Share of voice is a familiar concept from traditional media and brand measurement, and the AI-search version works the same way. If your firm is cited in 22% of AI answers for commercial litigation queries in your market, and your primary competitor appears in 41%, that gap is the business case, either for continued investment or for a strategic shift in how you are competing. For enterprise law firm engagements, share of model voice is typically tracked across 50 to 200 priority queries and 4 to 6 AI platforms on a weekly basis, with monthly rollups for reporting. Prompt Coverage by Practice Area Across the full universe of questions your target clients ask AI tools, how many of those prompts return a response that includes your firm? Practice-area segmentation is what separates a usable report from a vanity dashboard. A firm that performs well for corporate M&A queries in ChatGPT may be entirely absent from IP litigation queries in Perplexity. Without segmentation, those gaps are invisible, and they are exactly the gaps that matter most, because they map directly to business development priorities. For an Am Law 200 firm with 15 to 30+ practice areas, prompt coverage analysis has to be structured enough to surface which practices are performing, which are losing ground, and where the optimization priority queue should sit for the next quarter. And also, being realistic about what can be tracked is equally as important. Start with the priority practices of the firm; the practices that have the highest revenue potential, best profitability, and that firm leadership wants to grow. How It Works: The AI Visibility Report Am Law 200 Delivery Cadence 9Sail’s reporting cadence is built around what Am Law 200 marketing leaders actually need to bring into a partner meeting, not what is easiest to auto-generate from a tool dashboard. Daily monitoring. Prompt testing-at-scale across target platforms tracks citation changes in near real-time and surfaces content wins and emerging gaps before they become quarter-long blind spots. Monthly reporting. A structured report covers AI citation frequency, share of model voice versus defined competitors, prompt coverage by practice area, and a recommended optimization priority list for the following 30 days. Quarterly strategy consultation. A deeper review connects GEO data to business development priorities, attorney visibility goals, and content investment decisions. This is the meeting where the numbers become a strategy. Every report includes interpretation—what changed, why it likely changed, and what action it drives. An automated dashboard with no context is not a deliverable; it is a screenshot. The AI Visibility Report Am Law 200 also feeds directly back into the work. If monthly data shows a firm’s family law practice is being cited on Perplexity but absent from Google AI Overviews, the optimization response is different from a firm that is absent across the board. Reporting at the practice area, geographic market, and platform level is the granularity an Am Law 200 firm’s internal reporting actually requires. Most Am Law 200 firms are winning visibility for queries that include their own brand, and losing the visibility battle on the practice-area and issue-specific queries that actually drive new business conversations. What to Ask Any AI Optimization Agency Before You Sign A short, practical checklist for evaluating whether an agency’s reporting will hold up under partner scrutiny: Ask for a sample AI citation report. It should include a platform-level breakdown and a competitor comparison, not just a list of what they published last month. Ask for their prompt monitoring methodology. How many prompts, which platforms, how frequently, who reviews the results, and how prompts are refreshed as the firm’s practice mix evolves. Ask for an example of reporting driving strategy. At least one concrete case where reporting data changed the content plan or optimization approach for a client. Ask about their conflict policy. Do they work with competing firms in the same market and practice area, and how is that managed? If the agency cannot answer these specifically, reporting will be the weakest part of the engagement, and reporting is the part that matters most when firm leadership asks whether the investment is working. See Where Your Firm Stands 9Sail works exclusively with law firms and holds itself to the same accountability standard it is asking agencies to meet.

If you haven’t tried ChatGPT yet, you’re missing out! It’s a powerful tool that can be used to save time across a variety of tasks. Is content creation one of the things that ChatGPT is useful for? While some people suggest using AI tools to write web content, most experts recommend against it. In this article, I’m breaking down what you need to know about using ChatGPT for creating your law firm’s website content. The Risks of Using ChatGPT for Web Content ChatGPT and similar AI tools are extremely valuable if you’re looking to work smarter rather than harder. That being said, using these types of platforms does have a downside. Here are the key risks associated with using ChatGPT to create web content. ChatGPT can be wrong— and often is. One of the main problems with AI tools is the confidence with which they display incorrect information. Though the tools will always generate a response, you might not get accurate information. That would never be a great thing, but it’s especially troublesome for the legal industry. People searching for legal content must be able to rely on the truthfulness and accuracy of the information they find. ChatGPT relies on patterns in its existing training data, which can fall out of date (or be based on information that wasn’t correct in the first place). Proceed with caution when leveraging AI tools for information that you present as factual. AI tools are short on creativity and depth— ChatGPT cannot produce original ideas or content. It can only leverage information that’s already out there. Even if you are super careful about the prompts you enter, the content you get back is unlikely to be as engaging as what a human would write. Furthermore, you can’t expect such a tool to match your brand voice or be consistent with what you’ve already published. Readers who follow your blog or normally read your content are likely to recognize a different tone. AI-generated content lacks emotion and won’t be able to humanize your firm’s brand. Who owns AI content? Since we know that ChatGPT gets its information from the training data it has access to, there’s no good way to know where the information really comes from. The content it supplies exists somewhere else on the web—but you have no way to cite the original publisher. That also means that if you prompt ChatGPT with “Write a blog article about 5 steps for filing unemployment claims”, what is returned will have been published elsewhere—maybe even by a competing firm. So, who would own that content? You wouldn’t just go to another firm’s blog and copy their content, but ChatGPT isn’t all that different. ChatGPT content can reflect biases— There can always be inherent biases present in the training data AI tools use. As of right now, we don’t really know the source of all ChatGPT data and how it’s reviewed for biases. We don’t know if information has been fact-checked or how. Information could exhibit stereotypes or make assumptions that make people uncomfortable. This could lead to all sorts of issues that you don’t want to deal with. Information can’t be verified due to a lack of crawling— ChatGPT cannot crawl the web like a search engine. Unlike traditional search engine results, ChatGPT is based on a current database and can’t “look around” for new information. That means content may not be up to date on the latest laws, regulations, rulings, or other important legal matters. Again, this is particularly troublesome for anyone offering legal insights. You’re much better off relying on the specialized expertise of your team, even though it takes more time. Your Website Deserves Better Than Generic AI Content Your website isn’t just a digital brochure—it’s your most important business development tool. The words on your site should reflect your firm’s expertise, speak directly to your ideal client, and guide visitors toward taking action. That’s why using ChatGPT or other AI tools to generate web copy is particularly risky. Beyond the issues of inaccuracy, lack of originality, and brand inconsistency, AI-generated content often misses the mark on search engine optimization (SEO), user experience, and conversion best practices. In a competitive legal market, that’s a risk your firm can’t afford to take. At Good2bSocial, the digital marketing division of Best Lawyers®, we specialize in building high-performing legal websites that don’t just look good—they drive measurable results. Our human experts ensure your content is aligned with your brand voice, optimized for search, and strategically crafted to convert visitors into clients. How Law Firms Can Use AI Tools Like ChatGPT Strategically While we don’t recommend using ChatGPT to write your law firm’s website content from scratch, that doesn’t mean AI tools have no place in your marketing workflow. When used thoughtfully, they can support your content creation process without compromising quality or credibility. Here are a few ways law firms can leverage ChatGPT strategically: Brainstorming content ideas If you’re stuck on what to write about, ChatGPT can help you quickly generate blog topic ideas based on your practice areas or common client questions. Creating first drafts for internal content ChatGPT can assist in drafting internal documents, social media captions, or outlines for longer-form content that a human will then refine and edit. Summarizing complex legal topics AI can be useful for distilling large amounts of information into simpler summaries—as long as a legal professional reviews and verifies accuracy before publishing. Repackaging content for different channels Repurpose your existing content into email copy, meta descriptions, or content snippets for platforms like LinkedIn by using AI to speed up formatting and ideation. Grammar and clarity checks Tools like ChatGPT or Grammarly can help clean up grammar and improve sentence clarity during the editing phase. Pro Tip: Always treat AI-generated content as a starting point, not the final product. Human insight, legal accuracy, and emotional intelligence are still irreplaceable—especially in an industry built on trust. Takeaway There are many great use cases for ChatGPT, but creating web content isn’t one of them. In fact, doing so can actually hurt your brand if the information you share is inaccurate, out of date, or just plain unengaging. Remember, part of the appeal of original content is to connect with your audience at a more human level. Relying on technology may have the opposite effect.

In recent years, 3D animation has emerged as a powerful tool for teaching and transforming complex information into a digestible and compelling visual. Animation brings a case to life and can have a greater impact on juries, judges, and tribunals than still images by comparison. Based on years of experience in the courtroom, we have developed five tips and considerations to optimize the use of this invaluable litigation tool.

Ask any long-time HR professional what the most significant change of the last few years has been, and they’ll all tell you the same things: the use of HR technology and the investment in human capital. The two are intrinsically linked to the success of organizations in today’s economy. As the face of HR changes, so too do the methodologies used. HR technology has paved the way for streamlined operations, seamless collaboration, and data-driven decision-making. From recruitment and onboarding to performance management and employee engagement, this powerful solution empowers organizations to optimize their workforce like never before. But does all of this change truly benefit employees, HR leaders, and organizations? Let’s take a look. The Evolution of HR Technology Over the years, HR technology has undergone a remarkable transformation alongside the importance of the department. Today, organizations rely on sophisticated software systems to streamline their HR processes and enhance overall efficiency while keeping the heart of HR the same. In the early stages, HR technology mainly focused on automating administrative tasks such as payroll processing and employee record management. However, as businesses recognized the potential for greater optimization, more advanced solutions were developed. One notable evolution is the rise of employee self-service portals. These online platforms empower employees to independently manage their personal information and professional development. This shift towards self-service not only reduces administrative burden but also enhances employee engagement by providing instant access to critical resources. With the emergence of mobile applications explicitly tailored for HR functions—such as recruitment apps or performance tracking tools—accessing vital information has become even more accessible through smartphones or tablets. As we continue into an increasingly digital age with rapid technological advancements—including data analytics capabilities like predictive analytics—it’s safe to say that this evolution will persist. The future holds exciting possibilities for leveraging AI-powered chatbots for candidate sourcing or utilizing virtual reality simulations for immersive training experiences. It also holds hope for Human Resources compliance, a growing area of risk and concern for organizations. Benefits of HR Technology in the Workplace HR technology has revolutionized how businesses manage their workforce, bringing numerous benefits to the workplace. One of the key advantages is increased efficiency and productivity. With automated processes for tasks such as recruitment, onboarding, and performance management, HR professionals can save time and focus on more strategic initiatives. Alongside this shift is an improvement in data accuracy and analysis. HR technology enables organizations to collect and analyze vast amounts of employee data, providing valuable insights for decision-making. From identifying skill gaps to tracking employee engagement levels, this data-driven approach helps companies make informed choices about talent management. HR Technology for Compliance Additionally, HR technology enhances compliance with labor laws and regulations. By automating processes related to payroll calculations or leave management, companies can ensure accurate record-keeping while minimizing errors that could lead to legal issues. Challenges in Adopting HR Technology Implementing HR technology can revolutionize the way organizations manage their workforce, but it has its challenges. One of the main hurdles companies face when adopting HR technology is resistance to change. Employees may be hesitant to embrace new systems and processes, causing a reluctance to fully engage with the technology. Another challenge is ensuring that the chosen HR technology aligns with the organization’s needs and goals. With numerous options available in the market, selecting the right solution can be overwhelming and time-consuming. It requires careful evaluation of various factors such as scalability, integration capabilities, and user-friendliness. Integration with existing systems poses yet another challenge. Many organizations have legacy systems in place that need to seamlessly integrate with new HR technology platforms. This can require significant effort from IT departments to ensure smooth data migration and synchronization between systems. Data security is also a concern when implementing HR technology. Organizations must ensure that sensitive employee information remains protected from unauthorized access or breaches. This means investing in robust cybersecurity measures and staying up-to-date on compliance regulations. While there are challenges involved in adopting HR technology, they can all be overcome through proper planning, communication, training, and support from management teams. Future Trends and Predictions for HR Technology The world of HR technology is constantly evolving, with new trends and advancements emerging each year. As organizations strive to stay ahead in the competitive market, it’s essential to keep an eye on the future of HR technology. Here are some exciting trends and predictions that we can expect to see in this field. The AI of it all. Artificial Intelligence (AI) will play a bigger role in HR processes. From automating repetitive tasks to analyzing employee data for better decision-making, AI will revolutionize HR operations. VR & AR come to the table. Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) will be used for immersive training experiences. Imagine employees being able to practice their skills in a virtual environment or attending virtual meetings from anywhere in the world. Data analytics drive strategic decisions. Data analytics will become even more crucial in driving strategic decisions within organizations. With advanced analytics tools, HR professionals can gain valuable insights into workforce patterns, engagement levels, and talent acquisition strategies. A mobile-first world. Mobile-friendly applications will continue dominating the HR tech landscape as employees increasingly rely on smartphones for work-related activities such as accessing payroll information or requesting time off. Employee well-being takes center stage. Employee well-being technologies will take center stage as organizations recognize the importance of promoting physical and mental wellness among their workforce. Employee data. Blockchain technology may find its way into HR systems, ensuring secure storage and verification of sensitive employee data like certifications or performance records. Personalization is no longer optional. Personalization will be key when it comes to delivering tailored experiences for candidates during recruitment processes or providing customized learning opportunities for employees’ professional development. Gen-Z pulls focus. Gen Z-focused tools and platforms specifically designed to cater to younger generations entering the workforce are likely to emerge as companies adapt their practices accordingly. As these trends unfold, it’s clear that technological innovations have immense potential when it comes to transforming traditional human resource management practices. How HR Technology Can Drive Organizational Success HR technology has revolutionized the way organizations manage their human resources. With advanced software and tools, companies can streamline their HR processes, improve efficiency, and drive organizational success. One key benefit of HR technology is its ability to automate time-consuming tasks such as payroll processing and employee onboarding. By automating these processes, HR professionals can focus on more strategic activities that contribute to the overall success of the organization. Another advantage of HR technology is its ability to provide real-time data and analytics. This allows managers to make informed decisions about talent acquisition, performance management, and employee engagement. By having access to accurate data, organizations can identify trends and patterns that help them optimize their workforce. HR technology has the ability to change the way HR departments function within an organization, but it has to be done in a way that makes sense—and that is often not up to the HR leaders, unfortunately, but other decision-makers within the company. Collaborating with the people using these products will yield greater results in terms of implementation, ROI, and understanding. HR Technology Is Your Friend, Not a Foe The evolution of HR technology has been remarkable, with advancements in artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, and cloud-based platforms revolutionizing the HR industry. These innovations have enabled businesses to automate processes, gain valuable insights into their workforce, and make data-driven decisions. All of the benefits of adopting HR technology are evident across various aspects of the workplace. Improved efficiency in recruitment and onboarding allows organizations to attract top talent quickly and seamlessly integrate them into the company culture. Performance management systems help managers provide regular feedback and coaching, leading to increased productivity and employee satisfaction.

Even though online marketers seem to come up with new strategies almost weekly, email marketing remains one of the most reliable and profitable forms of online marketing. As social media continues to grow and content marketing techniques dominate SEO methods, email marketing continues to show a strong track record and high rate of success. If your law firm wants to get the most out of email marketing, though, it’s important to do everything you can to create campaigns that maximize lead generation and minimize costs. Email serves as a powerful direct communication channel that enables your organization not only to pinpoint potential leads but also to foster meaningful relationships with them, ultimately guiding them toward conversion into valued customers. Here are eight essential tips that will help you to do exactly that. Don’t Overcomplicate Email Marketing One of the biggest causes of failure with email marketing is simply overcomplicating the whole process. Compared to other digital marketing techniques, email is pretty straightforward and easy to understand. Whether it’s going to ten people or ten thousand, the bottom line is that you are just writing an email. Writing a good email message is going to do more for you than any other “trick” you might come across. 1. Use Relevant Subject Lines Subject lines have the potential to make or break an email campaign. In an email message, the subject line serves the same purpose as the headline on an article. It’s a big factor for drawing clicks. The pivotal moment when your audience decides whether to open your email hinges on their assessment of the subject line. While you can’t guarantee that any email gets opened, you can almost guarantee that people are going to see that subject line in their list of new emails. Make sure the subject line of the messages you send are relevant, interesting, and most of all, they tell the reader what they can expect to see if they open the email. If you’re giving away an eBook, putting on a webinar, or have something else of value for your readers, don’t try to be overly creative and surprise them. Put it right in the subject line and get them excited to see what’s inside. Enhance the effectiveness of your subject lines by making them actionable. Instead of a generic phrase like ‘New eBook,’ infuse a strong Call to Action (CTA) into your subject line. For instance, ‘Download our new eBook’ not only informs your audience about the content but also encourages them to take immediate action, directing traffic to your other platforms. 2. Keep Designs Clean Sloppy design and formatting can make someone close your email just as quickly as they opened it. It gives an instant impression of a lack of professionalism and can drive away leads that would have otherwise converted. If you are running a do-it-yourself campaign, you should strive to keep things as simple as possible. Write your messages the same way you would write any other email and don’t try to be too fancy with anything. Consistency is key when it comes to follow-up emails. By keeping them consistent in terms of color scheme and layout, you reinforce your brand’s identity. Consider incorporating your company’s logo into the email design as well; not only does this add a touch of professionalism, but it also establishes a visual connection between your brand and the content of the email. If you’re looking for a bit more than a plain black and white email message, you can hire a professional designer to create something for you or check with your email service provider to see if they have ready-made templates you can use. 3. Strive for Easy Readability Every email message your firm sends out needs to be easily readable and digestible. You should use large, clear fonts that readers won’t need to squint to see. Make sure the body of your message is easy to scan, just like you would a blog post. Make important points bold, or use bullet lists to make them easy to see. Above all, ensure that your call to action (CTA) is prominently displayed, starting right from the subject line, and seamlessly integrated throughout the email body. Utilizing action-oriented words like ‘attend,’ ‘register,’ or ‘read’ not only creates a clear and compelling CTA but also guides your recipients towards taking the desired actions you intend them to. Write your messages assuming that the recipients will be reading it while they are doing something else like commuting to work or waiting in line. This will help you to streamline your messages and make sure that you’re highlighting the most important information. Ensure that there is an easy way for the reader to actually complete the action after the email. Including hyperlinks within the email can streamline downloads and attendees. 4. Define the Purpose of Each Email Complete email campaigns can be made up of just a few individual messages or a few hundred messages. Either way, each individual message should have a clearly defined purpose as it’s put together. With one message you may want to educate the readers about a certain area of law. With a different message, you might be trying to get people to sign up for a webinar. Or you might be trying to drum up some attention for your social media presence. Whatever it is that you want to accomplish with each email message, you should have that purpose in mind right from the beginning and stick to it as you go through the process of creating the message. Details That Can Make a Difference Going beyond the basics of just writing a good email message, there are several things you can do to make each message more effective. By keeping an eye on some of the less obvious details, you can tune your messages and campaigns to continually get better results over time. 5. Use Specific Targeting No matter how big or small your email list is, you’ve probably got more than one audience under the surface. Some subscribers might be older while others are younger, and there are probably people interested in the different types of services that your firm provides. If you separate each of these subgroups and market to each of them with messages designed for their specific interests, you will be much more successful at converting leads. Using specific targeting strategies allows you to send the right message to the right people at the right time. This can lead to higher open rates, click-through rates, and most importantly, conversion rates. 6. Write Engaging Content Just like blog posts, if you want people to read your emails, the content has to be engaging, relevant, and interesting. Everything should be coherent, not a mismatch of random topics just there to fill up a page. Short and interesting articles in your emails will get your readers back to your website, your blog, or wherever else you’d like to direct them. Remember, the key to engaging email content is to provide value to your recipients. Make sure content meets their needs, interests, and preferences, as this will increase conversion rate. 7. Test Your Messages Even if your campaigns are doing well, it’s important to keep testing new ideas. You never know when you’ll come across something that can boost your returns even more. Most email service providers will allow you to conduct A/B testing or split testing. The basic idea is that you can send out two similar messages with specific differences, like the subject line or the wording of a call to action and see which generates a better response. When the test is complete, you can pick out the characteristics of each batch that worked the best and use those to improve future emails. When conducting A/B testing, it’s crucial to methodically test one variable at a time to isolate the specific impact of each change. Typically, you can experiment with elements such as subject lines, call-to-action (CTA) buttons, images, and send times. This approach ensures that your test results yield statistical significance, providing valuable insights. Over time, these tests serve as a valuable tool for refining your email campaigns and enhancing their overall effectiveness. 8. Analyze and Tune The most important thing to remember is that email marketing is not a “set it and forget it” kind of thing. You should regularly monitor things like open and click-through rates to make sure everything is going as planned. Sometimes just a small change in content can take your messages from people’s inboxes to their spam folders. If you’re not watching what’s going on, results could be disastrous. At the same time, you may need to make changes to keep open rates stable. If people start to think they’re just seeing the same thing over and over again they will understandably lose interest Takeaway: It doesn’t matter if your firm is just starting out with email marketing or if you’ve been doing it for a long time. Law firms of every size and type can benefit from an integrated email strategy.

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems have proven to be pivotal tools for numerous industries, and the legal sector is no exception. As law firms ramp up their marketing initiatives this October, it’s crucial to understand how a robust CRM system, bolstered by high-quality data, can elevate their marketing efforts. Importance of CRM in Legal Marketing Streamlined Client Interactions: A comprehensive CRM system captures every interaction, such as calls, emails or meetings, ensuring lawyers and their teams remain informed and can tailor their approach to individual client needs. Targeted Marketing Campaigns: By leveraging client and prospect data from CRM, law firms can create segmented marketing campaigns. For instance, a campaign targeted at clients seeking real estate legal advice in the fall can be distinctly different from one aimed at businesses looking for corporate legal services. Referral Tracking: Many lawyers acquire new clients through referrals. With a CRM, it’s easier to track which referrals come from where, enabling firms to focus their marketing efforts and appreciation on their most valuable networks. Data Quality: The Bedrock of Effective CRM For a CRM system to be effective, the quality of the data fed into it is paramount. Here’s why data quality is critical: Accuracy and Relevance: Ensuring that client data is accurate is vital. Incorrect contact details can lead to missed opportunities, while outdated information can render marketing campaigns ineffective. Enhanced Decision Making: Quality data enables law firms to glean actionable insights, from understanding which services are most sought after, to identifying the most influential referral sources. Personalization: In the age of digital marketing, personalization is key. Accurate and up-to-date data ensures that marketing campaigns resonate with their intended audiences. For instance, recognizing that a client has recently started a family business can lead to tailored communications about legalities related to family enterprises. Integrating CRM and Data Quality into October Strategies Incorporating CRM insights can refine each of the October marketing strategies mentioned above by: October Starter Webinar or Workshop: Use CRM data to identify topics that have been frequently discussed or queried by clients over the past months. This way, you can create content that directly addresses the pressing needs and concerns of your clients. Consider sending out pre-webinar surveys, leveraging CRM to select potential attendees and tailoring your content accordingly. By aligning your webinar or workshop topics with real-time data, you not only ensure relevancy but also boost engagement rates. Participate in Local October Festivities: Identify and reach out to potential clients or networks using CRM segmentation. By understanding the demographics, interests and preferences stored in your CRM, you can choose festivities that will best resonate with your target audience. Ensure your presence at these events is optimized for the clients you aim to serve. October Synopsis Newsletter: Include an item addressing common questions or issues stored in the CRM. This is a great way to demonstrate that you’re actively listening to your clients. Personalize the newsletter based on the data segments. For instance, for corporate clients, provide insights into upcoming legal changes that could impact their businesses. This proactive approach, fueled by CRM insights, establishes you as a thought leader in your domain. Strategize Ahead: Use CRM analytics to predict future client needs and craft early bird offers accordingly. By analyzing historical data and trends from previous years, you can anticipate client requirements in the coming months. Perhaps there’s a seasonal surge in certain legal queries around winter. Offer discounted packages or consultations related to those specific services. This preemptive approach positions your firm as both insightful and client centric. Revitalize Your Digital Footprint: Embed CRM feedback or client testimonials to make your website and social media more authentic and relatable. Positive feedback and testimonials can serve as powerful trust signals for potential clients. If, for instance, a client praised your swift response time or detailed consultation in the CRM feedback, highlight such commendations on your homepage or in your social media campaigns. By incorporating real client experiences, you humanize your brand and reinforce your credibility. Forge Ties with Autumn-centric Businesses: Use CRM to identify businesses that are active during the fall and approach them for collaborations. By understanding which businesses peak during the autumnal months through CRM analytics, you can offer specialized legal packages or workshops tailored for them. By deepening the integration of CRM insights into these strategies, legal professionals can craft more intuitive, targeted and successful marketing initiatives for the seasonal shift. With a focus on data quality, law firms can ensure that their marketing strategies are not only timely but also personalized, efficient and effective.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) can be a powerful tool to create and enhance advertising campaigns, but it is important to ensure that the ads are legally compliant. Generative AI, a type of AI that can create new content, including text, images, video, audio, code, and simulations, has become increasingly popular for use in many industries, including advertising. However, there are a myriad of legal issues that can arise when using AI to create ads. Many advertisers, advertising agencies and public relations firms are now using AI chatbots such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s new Bing search engine and Google’s new Bard chatbot to brainstorm ideas for ads and advertising campaigns. Using AI merely to help brainstorm new ideas presents some legal risks. However, using AI to create ads, either in whole or in part, presents numerous legal risks. Here are some guidelines to follow when creating ads using AI to help reduce some of the legal risks. 1. Document the Creative Process Used to Create Ads When Using AI Under recently published guidance by the U.S. Copyright Office, works created with the assistance of AI may be copyrightable as long as they involve sufficient human authorship. The Copyright Office has stated that “it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity.” According to the policy statement, works created by AI without human involvement cannot be copyrighted because they do not meet the human authorship requirement. “When an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the ‘traditional elements of authorship’ are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user.” However, a work containing AI-generated material may be copyrightable, such as when a human selects or arranges “AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.’” Therefore, advertising that is created solely by AI is not entitled to copyright protection in the United States. There must be sufficient human involvement, which should be documented. A best practice is to document how the advertising was created, such as by saving the history of the prompts used, subsequent steps taken to modify the prompts, steps taken to modify the output, and other ways in which the advertising was created. Copyright protection for advertising created with AI varies by country. In the United Kingdom (UK), advertising and other works created solely by a computer can be protected. The UK Intellectual Property Office has stated that “computer-generated works without a human author . . . are currently protected in the UK for 50 years.” The European Union (EU) is less clear. It has stated that an AI-generated work “could qualify as a work protected under EU copyright law on condition that a human being initiated and conceived the work and subsequently redacted the AI-assisted output in a creative manner.” When there is no copyright protection for advertising created by AI, companies may not be able to enforce their rights over others if the advertising is copied, even if it is blatantly copied. 2. Review All Claims to Ensure That They Are Truthful, Nondeceptive and Substantiated Advertising created by AI is subject to the same false advertising rules as all other advertising. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prohibits advertising that is false, misleading, or unsubstantiated. False advertising is also prohibited under state and local laws and can result in law enforcement action by the FTC and other federal agencies, state attorneys general, and local district attorneys, as well as lawsuits by competitors under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and lawsuits by consumers, including class actions. The remedies for false advertising consist of cease-and-desist orders, injunctions, monetary penalties, and/or corrective advertising. In addition to monetary penalties, financial losses from false advertising can include fines and attorneys’ fees; the cost of defense; the cost of replacing existing advertisements, displays and packaging; the cost of fielding consumer complaints; the cost of issuing refunds; and the loss of sales due to damage to consumer trust. FTC Chair Lina Khan has stated that the FTC will be taking an active role in ensuring that the rise of AI does not violate consumer protection and antitrust laws. In a guest essay in The New York Times, she wrote: “As companies race to deploy and monetize A.I., the Federal Trade Commission is taking a close look at how we can best achieve our dual mandate to promote fair competition and to protect Americans from unfair or deceptive practices.” Additionally, objective claims for products and services must be true, nondeceptive and adequately substantiated. AI chatbots can make up facts that may seem plausible but are not true and generate misinformation. According to an article in The New York Times, “because of the surprising way [AI chatbots] mix and match what they’ve learned to generate entirely new text, they often create convincing language that is flat-out wrong, or does not exist in their training data. A.I. researchers call this tendency to make stuff up a ‘hallucination,’ which can include irrelevant, nonsensical, or factually incorrect answers.” Advertising created in whole or in part by AI can contain hallucinations and other misinformation. Of course, claims for products or services based on AI hallucinations are likely to be false. Consequently, it is important that advertising created by AI be carefully reviewed to make sure that it is not false, misleading, or unsubstantiated. 3. Be Careful to Avoid Copyright Infringement Many AI chatbots are trained by analyzing huge amounts of data from the Internet. Advertising created by AI reflects this data. In some cases, the output of AI can include identifiable portions of the training data. When such outputs are used to create advertising, there is a risk of infringement of third-party copyrights by reproducing copyrighted material without permission. Advertising created by AI may also constitute a derivative work of copyrighted material, which also creates a risk of copyright infringement. Specifically, if the advertising created by AI is too similar to a copyrighted work, the advertising may violate the Copyright Act or foreign copyright laws and expose the advertiser to copyright infringement claims. The difficulty is that because users of AI are not aware of all the copyrighted material on the Internet (and used to train the AI), users may not know how similar the advertising is to a copyrighted work and may publish infringing advertising. Even if this does not give rise to copyright infringement claims, it can cause significant damage to the advertiser’s reputation. Advertising created by AI should be carefully reviewed to ensure that it does not infringe third-party copyrights or result in reputational damage to the advertiser. 4. Be Careful Not to Use an Advertiser’s Confidential Information for Prompts Prompts are the queries that users input into an AI system to generate an output. Prompts can be used by AI software for training purposes to improve their models. Users should be careful to avoid sharing confidential or sensitive information when creating prompts, since AI systems can incorporate the prompts to generate outputs for other users. If an advertising agency, a public relations firm, or an employee of an advertiser uses the advertiser’s confidential information in prompts to create advertising with AI, this could result in liability based on a breach of confidentiality. Likewise, if a prompt uses a company’s trade secret, providing that data to an AI model could result in the information losing its trade secret protection. If a prompt uses information subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, that information may lose its privileged status due to waiver of the privilege. Prompts that contain personal information can raise privacy law compliance obligations. There are United States and EU requirements regarding notice, consent, and data rights, such as the rights of individuals to access, delete or correct information. Many states have stringent consumer privacy laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which was strengthened as of January 1, 2023. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) applies to the online collection of personal information about children under 13 years of age. In the EU, companies must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) when using AI tools. The GDPR covers the use of personal data to train, develop or deploy AI. 5. Review the Terms of Use of the AI System Companies using AI to create advertising should review the terms of use of the AI system to understand the ownership and other rights involving the prompts and the output generated by the AI system, such as advertising. For example, OpenAI’s Terms of Use provide: As between the parties and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you own all Input. Subject to your compliance with these Terms, OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its rights, title, and interest in and to Output. This means you can use Content for any purpose, including commercial purposes such as sale or publication, if you comply with these Terms. OpenAI may use Content to provide and maintain the Services, comply with applicable law, and enforce our policies. You are responsible for Content, including for ensuring that it does not violate any applicable law or these Terms. These terms apply to all OpenAI products, including ChatGPT, GPT-4 (OpenAI’s most advanced AI model) and DALL-E2 (an AI system used to create images and art from text inputs). Since the AI system may have rights to use the output, the system may reproduce the same or similar content for another user. This can result in copyright infringement claims and reputational harm based on plagiarism. 6. Establish AI Usage Policies for Employees Considering the risks when using AI to create advertising, advertisers, advertising agencies and public relations firms would do well to develop AI usage policies for employees. If a company permits its employees to use AI to create advertising, there should be protocols for the use of AI tools and for review of the advertising before it is published. Specifically, the usage policy should contain guidelines for employees to seek approval to use AI to create advertisements and to use AI for other purposes. The guidelines should also cover what the review process of the advertising will entail, including higher-risk areas that employees should be aware of when using AI to create advertising. It is important for employees to understand that they should not use AI to create advertising unless they are permitted to do so by their employer. For example, the guidelines could prohibit employees from using AI tools for advertising unless approved by the legal department. 

Dan Martin, Trial Consulting Lead at IMS Consulting & Expert Services, shared his predictions concerning the types of trial technology that attorneys soon will be seeing—and using—in the courtroom and in online trials. When Dan Martin first started in the trial consulting profession 25 years ago, the practice of videotaping depositions was still fairly novel. Today, not only are many depositions videotaped, but their capture is often accomplished remotely. The attorneys Dan partnered with in the ’90s were still arriving at trial laden with graphics printed on large boards, a presentation medium that, while not forgone, has largely been supplanted by video displays. He has seen Ultra HD (4K) video slowly begin to take the place of plain old HD, which took the place of standard definition…and so on. Once satisfied with 2-dimensional graphic images, clients are increasingly requesting 3D animations. And the swiftest legal technology transformation Dan has witnessed took place about two years ago, when legal proceedings through the use of Zoom technology began to be conducted online. Innovation in Trial Technology As a trial consultant expert at IMS Consulting & Expert Services (one of the largest litigation support firms in the world), Dan has his fingers on the pulse of the courtroom technology industry. He and his colleagues typically are not only among the first to offer new technological tools to law firms, but they also play a role in the development of these innovations and are very often the catalysts for their widespread usage in courtrooms. When asked about courtroom tech and media trends on the horizon, Dan predicted we will continue to see a widening frontier in trial graphics that mirrors technological innovations taking place all around us. Dan shared, “My guess is that we’ll begin to see some level of augmented reality and virtual reality technology make its way into courtroom displays available to juries. To me the question is how ubiquitous that technology will become in the coming years. Lots of courts provide jurors with their own individual display monitors. It’s not farfetched to assume that jurors will be reaching down for a headset in five or ten years.” Augmented and Virtual Reality Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) are similar in that they enable people to experience 3D images virtually, but there are differences between the two technologies. AR adds virtual images to a real-life setting, while VR replaces the real-life setting with a completely virtual reality. They could walk around the structure and examine it from every angle. VR, on the other hand, might be used in an environmental case, for instance, to allow jurors to fly over the scene of a contamination site, and thus, gain a sense of the scope of damage. Holograms Dan offered another prediction too: “We’re probably not far off from seeing hologram technology come to the courtroom. It’s pretty exciting to think of all the potential applications for storytelling, and ultimately as a teaching tool. Imagine using holograms to present an anatomy tutorial in a personal injury case or to spin a chemical compound around in front of a jury box in a biopharma patent case.” Holographic technology is similar to AR technology in that they both can be used to bring a nonreal 3D object into a real-life space. They differ in that holograms are created by a process that uses a split laser beam and photographic plates and AR is created digitally. Also, the resolution of a hologram is lower than that of an AR image; however, the hologram has an advantage in that it can be seen with the naked eye, meaning no headsets are needed. 3D Animation While Dan is excited to see these innovations appear in the courtroom, he said the high-tech tools his graphics team already has at its disposal, in most cases, relay information to jurors just as effectively. “In addition to traditional trial graphics and simple 2D animation, 3D animation continues to be an amazing tool. We’ve used 3D for years to teach concepts, to put forth a version of events, or provide the lay of the land. Now we’re seeing apps that use LiDAR-type scan data to quickly develop objects in 3D space. Anyone can play with this stuff,” he continued. Dan was referring to the new LiDAR sensor feature that is available on iPhones versions 12 Pro and up. LiDAR stands for light detection and ranging, and this technology uses waves of light pulses to generate information about the shape of an object or objects within a scene. A person with an iPhone can now download a scanner app, scan any object or scene with their phone, and then bring that scan into a 3D program (such as Blender) and use the information to create a 3D image for screen or to create a tangible model. The 3D image created by an iPhone can even be placed directly into a PowerPoint program. Using the morph feature within that program, the object’s movements can be displayed in a series of still slides—thus allowing jurors to see the image from every angle—or the object can be entirely animated on one single slide. Drone Footage Dan and fellow IMS Trial Consultant Andrew Buckley recently created an internal presentation entitled Camera Obscura: A Peek Inside the Black Box of Media Production at IMS. This demonstration contained drone footage of a swamp that was remarkably crisp and clear, so our viewers felt like they were actually there. When asked if drone footage of that caliber is rare within the trial graphics industry, Dan responded: “Anyone filming in 4K video these days, and most are, can achieve crisp imagery. What sets our drone videos apart from that of other trial consulting firms is the level of artistry, the viewpoints that we are able to capture. In order to create high-level drone footage, you need a skilled pilot who possesses the sensibilities of a professional photographer-videographer. At IMS, we happen to have a great one: my colleague Andrew Buckley.” Challenges to Consider Adopting New Technology While state-of-the-art display methods are widely used by law firms and their clients, including during online trial proceedings, some courtrooms may be a bit behind the times. “Your new tech is only as good as your display, and in terms of display equipment, lots of courts are stuck in the past,” Dan revealed. “We graphics people love our color-corrected 4K monitors and widescreen presentations, but the hot seat operators—the people who have to deal with actual tech in the courtroom—are often dealing with outmoded courtroom equipment with different parameters and are trying to fix things on the fly.” Dan gave two reasons why courts are sometimes slow to adopt recent technologies. The first is that they need to be absolutely certain innovations will not be unduly persuasive. Second, initially, new technology is very expensive, and courts may have little incentive to upgrade. “We are always going to design for the highest quality,” he said, “but we still need to be able to display those graphics in a courtroom that has old-fashioned equipment. They’ll be high quality, just not at their full potential. And the truth is, we’re not designing solely for the courtroom. Leading up to trial, graphics preparation aids the attorneys in their strategy development. Sometimes it’s the power of a great presentation that leads the other side to decide to settle.” Connecting Messages With Media The arsenal of display tools trial consultants and graphic designers have available to them has grown immensely and will continue to do so. But just like a power drill will not do the job of a tweezer, no tool is intrinsically superior to another. Each has their own purposes, and some are better suited than others to relay particular messages to jurors. “We never put the media before the message. We help tailor the presentation to the narrative and the strategy. It’s that alignment that keeps jurors alert and intrigued.” Dan and his team consider several factors when making determinations about the mediums to use in a legal matter. They make their decisions based on the key points that are crucial for jurors to receive; the testimony styles, capabilities, and preferences of attorneys and witnesses; and the cost. Our trial consultants and designers often have the luxury of being able to choose between several display alternatives—all of which are capable of effectively doing the job. Get Ahead of the Curve The only constant in life is change, and that adage is particularly true when it comes to trial technology. When AR, VR, and even holograms one day hit the courtroom, Dan and his trial consulting and graphics teams will be ready to utilize them. They ever invest in new technological tools, become proficient in their use, and share them with their attorney partners.  The one thing that never changes is Dan and his teammates’ overarching goal, which is to ensure attorneys are optimally positioned to win cases.