Business Development

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Real Property JJD-HOV Elk Grove, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC (2024) _Cal. 5th_, 2024 WL 5164746: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal decision that upheld a cotenancy provision in a commercial lease as reflecting the parties’ agreement regarding acceptable alternative performance of agreed upon contract obligations. The California Supreme Court declined to follow the analysis of the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal in Grand Prospect Partners, L.P. v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336 that had concluded that a cotenancy provision operated as an unenforceable penalty under California Civil Code section 1671. The trial court and Court of Appeal in this case properly analyzed the cotenancy provision as a form of alternative performance because the provision allocated risks and benefits between the two parties and provided plaintiff a realistic choice between accepting lower rent or taking additional efforts to increase occupancy rates or secure replacement anchor tenants. The lease and cotenancy provision were enforceable because they simply created a rent scheme in which there were two applicable rents. (December 19, 2024.) CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Arbitration Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., et al. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 5251619: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). The trial court denied the motion based upon its conclusion that plaintiff’s PAGA action did not allege any individual claims subject to arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed. Based on the unambiguous, ordinary meaning of the relevant statutory language and the legislative history of that language, the Court of Appeal concluded that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA claim. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and directed the trial court to enter a new order (1) compelling the parties to arbitrate plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim and (2) staying the representative PAGA claim portion of the lawsuit. (C.A. 2nd, December 30, 2024.) Employment Chavez v. Cal. Collision (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 5064368: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding defendants’ costs against plaintiff Samuel Zarate because he had rejected defendants section 998 offer and recovered a smaller amount at trial, it affirmed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to plaintiffs Jorge Chavez and Aldo Isas (for work performed before they accepted 998 offers), and attorney fees for Zarate (for work performed before he was served a 998 offer that he ignored), and it concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear plaintiff Zarate’s challenges to two interlocutory orders (pretrial motion for summary adjudication and motion for a directed verdict) because he failed to file a notice of appeal from the final judgment entered after trial. The Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of attorney fees of $5,705 to Isas, $8,300 to Chavez, and $260 to Zarate. The trial court erred in awarding costs to defendants and against Zarate under section 998 because the award violated Labor Code sections 1194 and 218.5 which specified the costs and fees that could be recovered in Zarate’s action. The trial court was directed to enter a new order denying defendants’ motion for costs and a new judgment reinstating Zarate’s total award of $26,804.91. (C.A. 1st, December 10, 2024.) Medical Malpractice Ng v. Super. Ct. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 323098: The Court of Appeal granted a writ petition that directed the trial court to vacate its earlier order granting defendant Los Alamitos Medical Center, Inc.’s (defendant) motion to strike portions of plaintiff’s complaint seeking two MICRA caps in an action for wrongful death and a survival action. The dispute was whether recent amendments to the cap on noneconomic damages (Civ. Code, § 3333.2) under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA) and to the availability of noneconomic damages in survival actions (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.34) permitted plaintiff to recover noneconomic damages under one or two MICRA caps. The Court of Appeal concluded that the recent amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34, which authorized a decedent’s personal representative or successor in interest to recover noneconomic damages, means a plaintiff can seek two MICRA cap awards (one for himself or herself and one for the decedent) under Civil Code section 3333.2. Because a wrongful death claim and a survival claim—even when premised on the same alleged medical malpractice—are separate and distinct claims, a plaintiff suing for both claims can seek to recover two MICRA caps. (C.A. 4th, January 29, 2025.)

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

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

Many law firm owners and managers want to grow or scale their firms. If they can increase their firm, they can pay themselves and their employees more. With more income, law firms can do other great things, like buy new equipment, obtain better benefits, and maybe even expand their law firm. It can even allow a law firm manager or owner to retire sooner. What’s the Average Growth Rate? Many law firm owners and managers have no idea what the average growth rate of a law firm is when trying to grow it. Knowing the average growth rate can allow a law firm to have reasonable expectations. By having realistic expectations, law firms can budget and plan accordingly. According to a recent American Bar Association article, the first half of 2024 was relatively strong for law firms, with an average growth rate of 11.4 percent. In 2023, the average growth rate was less than half at 4.4 percent. The article says: “The rate growth was highest—at 10%—for firms among the nation’s top 50 for gross revenues. Those firms also had the highest revenue growth, with a 13.8% increase.” What Do These Numbers Mean for Your Firm? Average growth rates do not necessarily mean a lot for every law firm. Some law firms exceed national averages, while others fall below them. However, knowing the averages can be a good guide for budgeting and planning as a starting point. If a law firm plans to exceed these averages, it will likely have to be aggressive. Being aggressive likely means opening new satellite locations, increasing the advertising budget, and hiring attorneys and staff to handle the increased workload. Scaling a law firm can be a risky endeavor. A law firm owner or manager may be in a tough spot if it does not work. But if it works, the reward can be significant. It is often true that it can be easier to grow a law firm out of the gates quickly, but that growth can slow down the larger the law firm because the firm can become hard to manage. For example, a law firm that can double its income in its early stages will find that almost impossible to replicate once the firm reaches seven or eight figures. There are law firms that exceed these expectations each year and receive awards from organizations such as Law Firm 500. However, it can be hard to exceed national averages if a law firm does not open new locations, advertise, hire with a degree of speed, and have the proper infrastructure. Some law firm managers and owners may try to scale their firms unsuccessfully. Many do not succeed because they lack a solid marketing plan, do not budget carefully, or do not have a process for making good hires. Rising Costs Are Also an Issue Rising costs and inflationary factors can also impact law firms. Even if a law firm increases its gross revenues, the cost of just about everything increases for law firms. Increasing costs include insurance, rent, taxes, salaries, and advertising. Thus, to scale a law firm successfully, the growth rate does have to exceed inflationary factors. However, when a law firm’s revenue numbers become static or even decrease, with increasing costs, many law firms can shrink when considering rising prices. Thus, many law firms will want to aspire for some growth to maintain the status quo.

Having served as a mediator for over 30 years, I have observed in-house counsel trying, with varying success, to manage outside counsel and others in the mediation process, including the neutral. Optimal results in mediation are not assured simply by retaining highly qualified outside counsel and mediators. As a result of my experience, I offer in-house counsel the following practical tips to make better use of these chosen professionals to achieve more favorable outcomes for your company. These tips also provide guidance to outside counsel and other neutrals as they seek to work with in-house counsel and each other to improve their own effectiveness as well as that of each participant in this important dispute resolution process. One of the most critical steps in optimizing use of outside counsel and mediators is to establish clear roles and expectations from the outset. This clarity helps prevent misunderstandings, streamlines the process and helps everyone work toward the same goals. When working with outside counsel, start by drafting a detailed negotiation strategy that outlines: The scope of the negotiation strategy Key performance indicators (KPIs) and success metrics Reporting requirements and frequency Budget constraints and billing procedures Decision-making authority and escalation processes Make clear to your mediators: The desired outcome of the mediation from your company’s long-term business perspective Any non-negotiable terms or deal-breakers The level of settlement authority granted to the mediation team Whom you may need to consult to obtain different authority, either as to amount or non-monetary terms By setting these parameters early, you create a framework for accountability and efficiency. Regular check-ins to review and adjust these expectations as needed will help maintain alignment throughout the process. Effective communication is the cornerstone of any successful litigation management strategy. As in-house counsel, you play a pivotal role in facilitating open and transparent communication between all parties involved. Implement the following practices to enhance communication: Schedule regular status meetings with outside counsel to discuss case progress, strategy adjustments and any emerging issues. Establish a secure, centralized platform for document sharing and collaboration. This procedure helps provide all parties with access to the most up-to-date information and reduces the risk of miscommunication. Encourage direct communication between outside counsel and key stakeholders within your company when appropriate. This action can help outside counsel better understand the business context and tailor their strategy accordingly. Create a clear escalation protocol for urgent matters or decisions that require immediate attention. Consider organizing and participating in pre-mediation conferences with the mediator to discuss case dynamics, potential roadblocks and strategies for moving negotiations forward. By fostering a culture of open communication, you will be better positioned to address challenges proactively and capitalize on opportunities as they arise. Many in-house counsel make the mistake of viewing mediation as a last resort or a mere formality before trial. However, engaging with a mediator early in the dispute resolution process can provide significant advantages. Consider the following approaches: Involve the mediator in case assessment: A skilled mediator can offer valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of your case from a neutral perspective. This can help you refine your strategy and set realistic expectations for settlement. Use the mediator to facilitate information exchange: In complex cases, mediators can help structure and oversee the exchange of key information between parties. This procedure can streamline the discovery process and potentially lead to earlier resolutions. Explore creative solutions: Mediators often have experience with a wide range of dispute resolution techniques. Engaging them early allows for the exploration of innovative settlement structures that may not be available through traditional litigation. Address emotional barriers: In high-stakes disputes, emotions can often hinder productive negotiations. Skilled mediators can help diffuse tension and create an environment conducive to settlement discussions. Conduct pre-mediation sessions: These sessions can help identify and address potential roadblocks before the formal mediation begins, increasing the chances of a successful outcome. By leveraging the mediator’s experience throughout the dispute resolution process, you can often achieve more favorable outcomes more efficiently. While outside counsel will be responsible for much of the day-to-day case management, as in-house counsel, you play a crucial role in developing and overseeing the overall case strategy. This strategy should align with your company’s broader business objectives and risk tolerance. To develop a comprehensive case strategy: Conduct a thorough risk assessment: Work with key stakeholders to identify potential impacts on the business, including financial, reputational and operational risks. Set clear objectives: Define what constitutes a “win” for your company, whether it is a specific settlement amount, preserving a business relationship or setting a legal precedent. Develop decision trees: Map out various scenarios and decision points to help guide your approach as the case progresses. Allocate resources effectively: Determine which aspects of the case require the most attention, and allocate your budget and personnel accordingly. Plan for contingencies: Anticipate potential challenges or setbacks, and develop response plans in advance. Align the strategy with business goals: The legal strategy should support the company’s overall business objectives and should not create unintended consequences. By developing a comprehensive strategy and sharing it with outside counsel and the mediator, you are increasing the likelihood that all efforts are aligned and focused on achieving the best possible outcome for your company. The conclusion of a mediation, whether successful or not, presents a valuable learning opportunity. Conducting thorough post-mediation debriefs can help you refine your approach for future disputes and continuously improve your use of outside counsel and mediators. Key elements of an effective post-mediation debrief include: Outcome analysis: Evaluate the mediation outcome against your initial objectives. Identify areas where you achieved your goals and where you fell short. Strategy assessment: Review the effectiveness of your overall strategy and tactics. Determine what worked well and what could be improved. Team performance: Assess the performance of both in-house and outside counsel. Identify strengths to leverage and areas for improvement. Mediator effectiveness: Evaluate the mediator’s performance and consider whether you would use them again for similar cases. Lessons learned: Document key takeaways and insights that can be applied to future disputes. Process improvement: Identify any procedural or systemic issues that hindered the mediation process, and develop plans to address them. Client feedback: If appropriate, solicit feedback from key stakeholders within your company about their perceptions of the process and outcome. By consistently conducting these debriefs, you create a feedback loop that allows for continuous improvement in your approach to dispute resolution. As in-house counsel, effectively managing outside counsel and mediators is crucial to achieving favorable outcomes in complex legal disputes. By implementing these five tips—clearly defining roles and expectations, facilitating open communication, leveraging mediator experience early, preparing comprehensive case strategies and conducting post-mediation debriefs—you can significantly enhance the value you derive from these professional relationships.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Civil Procedure/Discovery City of Los Angeles v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 3894042: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision that had reversed the trial court’s order concluding that plaintiff had been engaging in an egregious pattern of discovery abuse as part of a campaign to cover up its misconduct, and ordering plaintiff to pay $2.5 million in discovery sanctions to defendant. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not have the authority to issue the order under the general provisions of the Civil Discovery Act concerning discovery sanctions, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030. The California Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that under the general sanctions provisions of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, the trial court had the authority to impose monetary sanctions for plaintiff’s pattern of discovery abuse. The trial court was not limited to imposing sanctions for each individual violation of the rules governing depositions or other methods of discovery. (August 22, 2024.) Employment Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 3611975: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that had affirmed the trial court’s order denying motions, by other employees who had filed separate PAGA actions against defendant employer, to intervene in this PAGA action and submit objections to the settlement and to vacate the judgment. This case involved what has become a common scenario in PAGA litigation: multiple persons claiming to be an “aggrieved employee” within the meaning of PAGA file separate and independent lawsuits seeking recovery of civil penalties from the same employer for the same alleged Labor Code violations. The California Supreme Court observed that a PAGA plaintiff may use the ordinary tools of civil litigation that are consistent with the statutory authorization to commence an action such as taking discovery, filing motions, and attending trial. However, the California Supreme Court concluded that it would be inconsistent with the scheme the Legislature enacted for PAGA cases to allow other PAGA plaintiffs to intervene in an ongoing PAGA action of another plaintiff asserting overlapping claims, to require the trial court to consider objections to a proposed settlement in that overlapping action, and to allow other PAGA plaintiffs to move to vacate the judgment in that action. This conclusion best comports with the relevant provisions of PAGA as read in their statutory context, in light of PAGA’s legislative history, and in consideration of the consequences that would follow from adopting the interpretation requested by the other PAGA plaintiffs. (August 1, 2024.) Torts Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 3894629: The California Supreme Court answered a question posed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Under Robinson Helicopter v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979 (Robinson), may a plaintiff assert a tort claim for fraudulent concealment arising from or related to the performance of a contract? The California Supreme Court said the answer is a qualified yes. A plaintiff may assert a fraudulent concealment cause of action based on conduct occurring in the course of a contractual relationship if the elements of the claim can be established independently of the parties’ contractual rights and obligations, and the tortious conduct exposes the plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract. The economic loss doctrine does not apply if defendant’s breach caused physical damage or personal injury beyond the economic losses caused by the contractual breach and defendant violated a duty flowing, not from the contract, but from a separate, legally recognized tort obligation. (August 22, 2024.) CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Arbitration Anoke v. Twitter (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4230621: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiffs’ petition for an order compelling defendants to pay plaintiffs’ arbitration-related attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97 for failure to pay the initial arbitration fees within 30 days of the original invoice. The arbitration provider sent an invoice to all counsel for the initial fees of defendants of $27,200. Plaintiffs’ counsel paid the fees the same day. When defense counsel checked the system the next day, the arbitration provider’s system showed the fees were paid in full. Plaintiffs’ counsel notified the arbitration provider of his mistake this same day. The arbitration provider sent a refund to plaintiffs’ counsel, and later sent an invoice for defendants’ initial arbitration fees which defendants paid within 30 days of that invoice. The trial court properly denied plaintiffs’ petition. Because the arbitrator nullified the first invoice after plaintiffs’ attorney mistakenly paid it, and defendants timely paid the second invoice, defendants met the statutory deadline. (C.A. 1st, filed August 27, 2024, published September 18, 2024.) Insurance Fox Paine & Co., LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co. et al. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4093921: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining demurrers, without leave to amend, by two defendant excess carriers named in plaintiffs’ third amended complaint against three excess carrier defendants alleging, among other things, that they had failed to pay covered claims in underlying litigation and alleging causes of action for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty . The trial court properly overruled the demurrer of defendant excess carrier Twin City Fire Insurance Company (who issued the first excess and third excess policies), properly concluding that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged exhaustion of the primary insurance policy such that the first excess coverage policy was triggered. The trial court properly sustained, without leave to amend, the demurrers of the other two excess carrier defendants (who issued the second and fourth excess policies), properly concluding that plaintiffs did not allege exhaustion of the underlying policies. The trial court also properly rejected plaintiffs argument that excess carrier defendant St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company had waived or was estopped from asserting lack of exhaustion as a coverage defense because it had settled with other insured entities in a separate action. (C.A. 1st, September 5, 2024.) Legal Malpractice Grossman v. Wakeman (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4034844: The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for plaintiffs, following a jury trial, that awarded plaintiffs damages totaling $9.5 million. Plaintiffs were the sons and grandchildren of decedent Dr. A. Richard Grossman. Defendants were the attorney (and his law firm) who represented decedent, Dr. Grossman, in preparing estate planning documents in 2012 which disinherited plaintiffs. Decedent left his entire estate to his fourth wife, Elizabeth Grossman, whom he married in 2000 and whom he remained married to until his death in 2014. The jury concluded that plaintiffs were the intended beneficiaries of the estate planning documents, and defendants had breached the standard of care owed to plaintiffs in the preparation of the documents and plaintiffs were damaged by defendants’ negligence. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to show that defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiffs because there was no clear, certain and undisputed evidence of decedent’s intent to benefit plaintiffs by leaving his estate to them instead of to Elizabeth Grossman. (C.A. 2nd, September 4, 2024.) Torts Kim v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 4259284: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action for personal injuries suffered when his car was hit by an Uber driver who had turned his Uber App to “offline” about four minutes before the accident and more than a mile away from the accident site. Plaintiff argued that Uber drivers can go from “offline” to “available” within 30 seconds and they are able to see an Uber map showing areas of high demand for rides even when they are “offline,” claiming there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the driver was operating his vehicle with the intention of switching back to available status at the time of his collision with plaintiff. The trial court properly concluded that plaintiff’s arguments were speculative and properly granted the motion for summary judgment. (C.A. 2nd, filed August 30, 2024, published September 20, 2024.)

If you read our past article on what makes up a modern marketing technology stack, you know that thousands of platforms are available to help with virtually every facet of running your law firm’s day-to-day marketing. Moreover, implementing, maintaining, and optimizing your law firm’s Marketing Technology Stack is not a simple, streamlined process. Unfortunately, too many law firms end up implementing technology they don’t use because vendors over-promised. In general, there are 6 mistakes law firms make when selecting and adopting marketing technology solutions. We’ll cover them here, so your firm can avoid these pitfalls when considering new marketing technology. 1. You Believe That Integration Will Be Easy It’s a vendor’s job to promise that installation will be simple, but that’s rarely the case. Every law firm is different, which means implementing new technology is more complex than what an outside vendor can understand from brief interactions. Make sure you drill down into the process and ask detailed questions on any platform. Ask vendors if they’ve worked with your specific systems before, and let them know if you have any custom code. Be sure to get references and take the time to call and discuss the potential platform. While some technologies are easy to implement, you should know that those are the exception, not the rule. 2. You Get Excited About too Many New Platforms Perhaps you’ve just been at a legal tech conference, and you come back invigorated about new technology options. Maybe you have a new marketing director at your firm eager to make some changes. Whatever the reason, firms often end up biting off more than they can chew when they try to implement multiple new systems simultaneously. Every implementation requires resources from your teams, and those resources aren’t infinite. It’s important to scale into new technologies. We suggest building a long-term roadmap of the technology needs of your team, accounting for how long it will take to integrate each other and how they impact each other. Rank any new technology according to priority and need. When you implement new systems, start slow and keep it simple—scale up to the full capabilities. 3. You Think That Bigger Is Always Better Many law firms are only comfortable buying from the best-known brands or biggest names. Just remember that even the most prominent brands have issues. For one thing, they tend to be more expensive. It can also be tricky to see how integrated each of their solutions are. We suggest also looking at younger or smaller companies, as they often offer better customer service (and you’re bound to have questions in the early adoption phase!), and they may have features better tailored to your firm’s needs. 4. Your Law Firm’s Internal Teams Are Not Aligned It’s crucial to involve key stakeholders in choosing technology that affects them. Beyond the marketing team, consider who might need input on any platforms. The technology could impact business development, client service and secretaries, your CIO or CFO, and others. Anyone who will ultimately be an end user should have some say. Having your technology team on board is also essential, and ensuring proper resources will be allocated to an installation. Make sure the entire team involved is on board and engaged from the beginning, or you could potentially waste months not using the technology you pay monthly for. 5. You Assume the Job Is Finished After the Implementation Most advanced technologies require more than financial investment—they take time. Technology can only go so far. You must provide the right training and tools to help your team make the most of the technology you’ve invested in. Training, onboarding, and ongoing support are critical components of success in any marketing technology that you implement. Otherwise, you’ll have wasted dollars on platforms your team doesn’t know how to use. 6. Overlooking Data Security and Compliance Risks One of the most critical, yet often overlooked aspects of choosing new marketing technology is ensuring it meets data security and compliance standards. As law firms handle sensitive client information, any software you adopt must comply with legal industry regulations, such as data protection and confidentiality standards. Vendors should provide detailed documentation on how their platforms address security, encryption, and compliance issues. Always prioritize solutions that offer robust security features to protect your firm’s and clients’ data and avoid costly breaches or legal risks. Key Takeaway The fact is that there are plenty of marketing technologies out there that can help law firm marketing teams do their jobs more effectively. It’s important to invest the proper time and effort into implementing any new system to see a return on investment (ROI). 

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Arbitration Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 3530266: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal decision which had reversed the trial court’s decision denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s complaint alleging wrongful termination, age discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration concluding that plaintiff had shown he would suffer prejudice if arbitration was compelled. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court, finding that defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration and concluding the trial court’s finding that plaintiff had shown prejudice was not supported by substantial evidence. Two weeks after the Court of Appeal’s decision, the United States Supreme Court issued Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (2022) 596 U.S. 411 ( Morgan ), holding that federal law does not require a showing of prejudice to establish waiver of the right to arbitrate. ( Id. at pp. 413–414.) Because the California law requiring a showing of prejudice had been based upon earlier federal case law that was reversed by Morgan, the California Supreme Court abrogated the prejudice rule in light of Morgan and reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. (July 25, 2024.) Torts Downey v. City of Riverside (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 3491142: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s order affirming the trial court’s orders sustaining defendants’ demurrer, without leave to amend, to plaintiff’s complaint alleging negligence under Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728 ( Dillon ). Plaintiff, the mother of daughter Jayde Downey, was giving driving directions to her daughter over a cell phone and heard the event when her daughter was severely injured in a car crash. The trial court, and later the Court of Appeal, concluded that plaintiff could not recover emotional distress damages against the defendants unless at the time of the crash she was aware of a causal connection between her daughter’s injuries and the defendants’ alleged negligence in maintaining the intersection. The California Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that under Dillon it is the awareness of an event that is injuring the victim — not awareness of the defendant’s role in causing the injury — that matters. Neither precedent nor considerations of tort policy supported requiring plaintiffs asserting bystander emotional distress claims to show contemporaneous perception of the causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s injuries. (July 22, 2024.) CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Attorney Fees Dickson v. Mann (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 3421751: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying the third party claim of law firm Higgs, Fletcher & Mack LLP (HFM) where it claimed ownership of $585,000 in funds it received from HFM client and defendant Jack Mann pursuant to a flat fee agreement for future legal representation that HFM entered into with defendant, and its denial of HFM’s motion for reconsideration. After defendant stipulated to the entry of a $12 million judgment in favor of plaintiff, judgment was entered on August 8, 2022. On August 22, 2022, plaintiff served HFM with a notice of levy for any money it was holding in trust for defendant, and HFM later filed its third party claim. The trial court properly rejected plaintiff’s claim that the funds were still defendant’s as long as they remained in the client trust account. The trial court properly denied the third party claim because HFM presented no evidence that it had earned the flat fee. HFM argued that the flat fee was earned once it was deposited. However, Rule 1.5(d) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct clearly provides that a flat fee is not earned until services are provided. The trial court also properly denied the motion for reconsideration. (C.A. 4th, July 18, 2024.) Civil Code Medina v. St. George Auto Sales, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 3548620: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order overruling defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint, and its later denial of a motion for summary judgment and a motion for nonsuit. Plaintiff purchased a used car and sued defendants asserting a claim under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the CLRA; Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) for misrepresenting that the car’s engine was properly functioning and concealing extensive repairs to the car’s engine to induce plaintiff into purchasing the car. Plaintiff and defendants settled the case and agreed to a stipulated judgment after the jury concluded that plaintiff had timely brought his action within three years after discovering defendant’s conduct. The settlement allowed defendants to appeal the issue of whether plaintiff’s complaint was untimely because it was not filed within the three-year statute of limitations under the CLRA. (See § 1783.) Defendants argued that the discovery rule does not apply the CLRA’s statute of limitations. Finding no case law on this point, the Court of Appeal concluded that the discovery rule applies to the CLRA’s statute of limitations. All of defendants’ other arguments were rejected. (C.A. 4th, July 26, 2024.) Saurman v. Peter’s Landing Property Owner, LLC (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 3548509: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s orders granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and granting defendant’s motion for sanctions against plaintiffs’ attorney. Plaintiff husband, the successor in interest of his disabled wife who was allegedly killed by an unlawful access barrier in a restaurant, brought action against the current restaurant owner and the entity that previously owned the restaurant when plaintiff’s wife died, alleging violations under Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) public accommodation provision, and violations of state’s disability access laws (the Unruh Act and the Disabled Persons Act (DPA). The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the ADA cause of action, concluding that plaintiff husband lacked standing to bring a lawsuit for injunctive relief. It granted defendant’s summary judgment motion as to the state causes of action (Unruh Act and DPA) because plaintiff submitted no evidence to show any act, omission, or error by defendant current owner in relation to the action. Finally, the trial court granted the motion for sanctions, ordering plaintiff’s attorney to pay defendant $100,000 for pursuing what the trial court found to be frivolous claims. The Court of Appeal disagreed on each issue. It concluded that plaintiff husband had standing to commence an ADA claim on his deceased wife’s behalf in the superior court. It concluded that the Unruh Act and the DPA allowed plaintiff husband to seek injunctive relief from the current owner defendant. Finally, the Court of appeal concluded that the ADA, Unruh Act, and DPA claims that were supported by facts developed at the summary judgment stage were arguably legally meritorious and the trial court erred by imposing the attorney sanctions award. (C.A. 4th, July 26, 2025.) Limited Liability Companies Camden Systems v. 409 North Camden (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 3506697: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action seeking declarations that certain actions taken by members of defendant, including distributions to the members, were invalid and seeking return of the distributed funds. The trial court properly concluded that while some of the actions taken by its members at the company’s February 2021 annual meeting were invalid in light of defective notice of the meeting, at the February 2022 annual meeting a majority of the members ratified the prior actions, thereby curing any defect in the 2021 notice. The Court of Appeal affirmed, observing that the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (the Act; Corp. Code, § 17701.01 et seq.), which governs the management and operation of limited liability companies, provides that a limited liability company generally “shall have all the powers of a natural person in carrying out its business activities.” (§ 17701.05.) Because a natural person has the power to ratify acts taken on the person’s behalf, limited liability companies likewise may, through their members, ratify actions previously taken on behalf of the company. In addition, the trial court also properly upheld the resolution adopted by the majority of defendant’s members to indemnify its members and advance defense costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit filed by plaintiff. (C.A. 2nd, July 23, 2024.)

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Arbitration Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 1319134: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal, which had affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s complaint alleging negligence and elder abuse. Plaintiff signed a power of attorney for health care appointing his nephew, Mark Harrod, as his “health care agent” to make “health care decisions” should plaintiff’s primary physician find plaintiff unable to make those decisions himself. Plaintiff later fell, broke a femur, became unable to walk and was admitted to defendant skilled nursing facility to obtain living assistance and rehabilitative treatment. During the admission process Mark Harrod signed two agreements. The first was an admission agreement that was state-mandated and unalterable. The second was an arbitration agreement. The California Supreme Court concluded that the execution of the optional contract for arbitration was not a health care decision within the health care agent’s authority, and defendant’s owners and operators could not rely on the agent’s execution of the second agreement to compel arbitration of claims arising from the principal’s alleged maltreatment alleged in his complaint. (March 28, 2024.) Civil Procedure TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 763422: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that affirmed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for relief from waiver of a jury trial. Plaintiff did not make a jury fee deposit because defendant did so. On the day of trial, defendant said he was waiving his request for a jury trial. Plaintiff asked for a jury trial and offered to post the jury fee deposit. The trial court denied this request concluding that plaintiff had waived its right to a jury trial by not timely depositing the jury fee deposit. (Code of Civil Procedure, section 631.) Although the trial court observed that plaintiff could challenge the ruling by filing a petition for an extraordinary writ, plaintiff did not do so. After a seven day bench trial the trial court found against plaintiff. The California Supreme Court concluded that a trial court is not required to always grant relief from a jury waiver if proceeding with a jury would not cause hardship to other parties or to the trial court. A request for relief from jury waiver always calls for consideration of multiple factors in addition to hardship, including the timeliness of the request and the reasons supporting the request. The California Supreme Court also concluded that when a litigant challenges the denial of relief from jury waiver for the first time on appeal of the judgment of the trial court, where the constitutional right of jury trial has been validly waived, prejudice from the denial of section 631(g) relief will not be presumed but must be shown. (February 26, 2024.) CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Arbitration Davis v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 1130508: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in plaintiffs’ action for claims including violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly Act; Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) regarding a Nissan with an allegedly defective transmission. The Court of Appeal, joining with four other Court of Appeal decisions that had rejected Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, and noting the California Supreme Court has granted review to resolve the conflict, affirmed the trial court. (C.A. 4th, March 15, 2024.) Attorney Fees Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 1250214: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s request for attorney fees of $296,920 and costs in the amount of $26,932.84 under Labor Code section 1194(a) after the jury awarded plaintiff $7,659.93 in plaintiff’s action for Labor Code violations in connection with plaintiff’s work as a pizza delivery driver. Relying on Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a), which gives trial courts discretion to deny prevailing plaintiffs their litigation costs when plaintiffs file their case as an unlimited civil proceeding but only recover an amount available in a limited civil case, the trial court denied all attorney fees and costs, concluding that plaintiff’s counsel severely over-litigated the case and the requested fees and costs were grossly disproportional to plaintiff’s limited trial success. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding the trial court did not have discretion to deny plaintiff’s fees and costs in their entirety under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a), and plaintiff was entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. (C.A. 2nd, March 25, 2024.) Civil Procedure Ayers v. FCA US, LLC (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 805660: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding plaintiff attorney fees and costs totaling $187,747.75 after defendant accepted plaintiff’s January 2021 Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to settle plaintiff’s “lemon law” causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Song-Beverly; Civil Code section 1790 et seq.) for $125,000 plus costs, expenses and attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d). Before the settlement, the parties had exchanged earlier 998 offers, including a 998 offer from defendant in February 2018 to settle for $143,498. The trial court rejected defendant’s arguments that the February 2018 998 offer should have stopped plaintiff’s ability to collect attorney fees, concluding that section 998’s limitations on expense and cost recovery do not apply when the case is resolved by a pretrial settlement, and concluding that an intervening change in law that reduced the maximum amount plaintiff could recover at trial exempted him from the usual consequences of section 998. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that Section 998 applies to awards of attorney fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(d), section 998 applies even where the litigation is terminated by settlement, and section 998 makes no exception for an intervening change in law. The case was remanded and the trial court was instructed to enter a new judgment exclusive of any costs, as such term is used in section 1032(b), incurred by plaintiff after the date of defendant’s February 16, 2018 section 998 offer. (C.A. 2nd, February 27, 2024.) Torts Fraser v. Farvid (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 510111: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant landlord’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after the jury found for plaintiff against defendant and awarded plaintiff $600,000 for the injuries he suffered after he was attacked by two pit bulls who escaped from a single-family residence. Under California law a landlord is only liable if they have actual knowledge that the dog of a tenant is dangerous. In this case, while the evidence established the landlords knew there were dogs on the property, plaintiff failed to prove that defendants had actual knowledge the dogs were dangerous. (C.A. 2nd, February 9, 2024.) Settlement BTHHM Berkeley, LLC, et al. v. Johnston (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 1336433: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part, and struck in part, the trial court’s order enforcing a settlement term sheet and entering judgment against defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (section 664.6). The Court of Appeal affirmed in part, concluding that the settlement term sheet was enforceable under section 664.6, the liquidated damages of $250,000 was not unreasonably out of proportion to the $2.2 million settlement, and defendant failed to show the liquidated damages provision was unreasonable under the circumstances as required by Civil Code section 1671(b). However, the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest. Section 664.6 authorizes a trial court to enter a judgment reflecting the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement—nothing more, and nothing less. Prejudgment interest is not a cost, but an element of damages. By awarding prejudgment interest to compensate plaintiff for damages it suffered by virtue of defendant’s failure to pay, the trial court entered a judgment that differed materially from the terms of the parties’ agreement, and to that extent it was unauthorized. The portion of the judgment providing for prejudgment interest was stricken. (C.A. 1st, March 28, 2024.)

Key issues raised in current debates about the ROI of AI, including initial setup costs, quality control, and how to assess its true value As AI-powered tools continue to enter legal services and corporate compliance, a recurring question is, “Is AI worth it?” The initial expenses associated with AI adoption—including onboarding and integration—can seem daunting. However, with a strategic approach, AI can achieve significant returns on ROI and streamline document review processes. We’ll explore some of the concerns raised in online discussion, including: Doubts about AI’s value due to set up, training, and sampling costs. Additional QC requirements when using AI. The preference for paying human reviewers over AI tools. AI Costs: Barrier or Investment? A frequent concern is the upfront cost of implementing AI: the price of setting up the tool, training algorithms, fine-tuning workflows, and ensuring consistent quality control. It’s worth considering whether these “hidden costs” of AI are any different from the learning curve and investment needed when onboarding and deploying large teams of human reviewers. Are we unfairly holding AI to a higher standard of efficiency and reliability than we do manual processes? While AI requires oversight, it also accelerates insights such as potential classification or review priority, allowing teams to focus their energy on strategy rather than review. Is AI Worth the Effort? Critics argue that AI adds complexity to the document review process by adding workflows for each classification instead of relying on a team of people to decipher multiple classifications while looking at a single document. This is a question of which is more efficient: 1. one workflow that assigns multiple designations about a document (human review), or 2. multiple specialized workflows that each make one determination? Perhaps this question of whether AI is worth the effort is not a one-size-fits-all question and rather is best answered on a matter-by-matter basis. Why Use People for Tasks Better Suited for Technology? A recurring critique is the preference to pay for first-level reviewers instead of AI solutions. This raises a critical question: Why do organizations hesitate to invest in scalable technology while continuing to rely heavily on human resources? Is it a matter of trust? Many leaders are comfortable with traditional workflows, valuing the perceived reliability of human review. However, this approach doesn’t account for the increasing scale of modern data challenges, where AI excels by processing terabytes of information in hours that would be drudgery and exceedingly difficult for humans to accomplish. Is this default for using people for all tasks (instead of using people where they excel) over AI holding us back from greater efficiency and cost savings? Conclusion: What Does “Expensive” Really Mean? When we say AI is expensive, what do we mean? Is it the dollar amount attached to licensing a tool, or is it the perceived risk of stepping outside traditional methods? And how do we measure “expensive” against the cost of human error, inadvertent production of protected information, or missed deadlines? Perhaps the question isn’t whether AI is too expensive—but rather have we defined its value correctly in the first place. Consider the following stories of clients who used AI to cut document review costs in large, complex matters. A global pharmaceutical company used Lighthouse AI on a group of related matters. This enabled the company to reuse a total of 26K previous privilege coding decisions, avoiding inadvertent disclosures and heading off potential challenges from opposing counsel. An Am Law 200 law firm used Lighthouse AI to meet their strict production deadline and deliver results and value to their client. Using AI-enabled workflows, outside counsel saved 400+ hours of attorney privilege review time and $25K in contract review attorney costs. As debates around AI in document review evolve, the conversation is far from over. Rather than providing a definitive answer, we encourage you to reflect: What does “expensive” mean for your organization? Is it the upfront investment—or the opportunity cost of staying the same? The decision to adopt AI isn’t just about numbers. It’s about rethinking how we measure value in a world where the scale and complexity of data are constantly growing. 

When I speak with law firms, two topics come up over and over again—the practical implementation of AI in the practice of law and the challenge of attracting and retaining talent. Law firms, like all businesses, are in a constant battle for top talent. But when people join a firm—whether as young and enthusiastic lawyers or seasoned practitioners—what is it that truly keeps them there? Yes, they’ll consider compensation, benefits, remote work flexibility, and other perks. But more than anything, they’re looking for that elusive “good fit.” And what does “fit” really mean? It’s not about whether they mirror existing personalities or follow firm traditions. Instead, it’s about belonging—a workplace where they feel valued, can show up as their authentic selves, and see their contributions recognized and celebrated. Many firms focus on those external incentives—the pay, perks, and policies—but the internal culture and community are what truly set firms apart. So, here’s the real question: Do you know if your firm offers a strong internal community? Do your employees feel connected and engaged, even in hybrid or remote settings? Do they see a clear growth path and feel like their voices matter? Have you intentionally built a culture of mentorship and collaboration? Because at the end of the day, firms that invest in culture as much as they do in compensation are the ones that win the war for talent. So how can firms move beyond assuming they have a strong internal culture and actually measure and improve it? The first step is understanding who you are as a firm—not just in terms of your leadership, but across every level of your organization. Do you truly know what your lawyers and professionals value and what keeps them engaged? Many firms never actually ask. The best firms take the time to measure and assess their internal culture, whether through surveys, focus groups, or structured conversations that provide real insights into what’s working—and what’s not. But the most successful firms? They empower their folks to help shape what comes next. Rather than rolling out top-down initiatives, firms that engage their lawyers and professionals in defining their own focus areas are far more likely to see meaningful progress. Because a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work—what resonates in one country or practice group might not be relevant elsewhere. Firms that commit to gathering data, defining priorities, and fostering ongoing dialogue create cultures that people want to stay in and contribute to. Okay, so here’s your challenge: When was the last time your firm asked its lawyers and professionals what makes them feel engaged? Are you relying on assumptions, or do you have real insights into what your people need? (Truly ask yourself this question—it’s much easier to tell yourself that you already know what people want than to ask them, but you MUST ask them) How are you empowering them to shape their workplace, rather than just expecting them to adapt to it? Because the firms that get this right won’t just attract talent—they’ll keep it.

California leads the way with new AI laws promoting transparency, privacy and ethical practices across various industries. January 1, 2025, marked the start of a series of significant AI laws going into effect in California. California’s 18 new AI laws represent a significant step toward regulating this space, establishing requirements regarding deepfake technology, AI transparency, data privacy and use of AI in the health care arena. These laws reinforce the state’s desire to be a pioneer in this space. This article provides a detailed look at the enacted legislation, addresses compliance timelines and serves as a guide for businesses as they navigate compliance with California’s evolving AI landscape. New California Laws Enacted to Keep AI in Check California’s new laws seek to keep AI in check across a wide range of industries, including social media, entertainment, health care, elections and more. Of the 38 AI bills that were sent to the California Governor Gavin Newsom, 18 were signed into law. In this article, we highlight both broad and industry-specific laws that may impact businesses, such as mandates for AI transparency, consumer data protections, safeguards against misuse of AI in media and health care, and the establishment of mechanisms to address emerging concerns such as neural data privacy and deceptive content in elections. These laws, including amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and specific requirements for AI training data, generative AI (gen AI) disclosures and content labeling, impose new compliance obligations that span a range of sectors, demanding significant operational and technological adjustments. Generally, enforcement from state agencies will come in the form of informal inquiries and formal enforcement actions seeking injunctive relief, fines and, in some cases, criminal penalties. While some laws permit a private right of action, most of the laws focus on state oversight to keep AI transparent and protect the public from misuse. Of the 18 laws signed into law, SB 926, AB 1836, AB 2655 and AB 2839 include a private right of action, whereas the remaining laws are either silent on this issue or explicitly prohibit it. In this update, we break down California’s latest AI laws with accessible summary charts covering each law’s code, key details, effective dates, and must-know deadlines along with actionable steps to help with your compliance program. We also spotlight notable bills that Gov. Newsom vetoed. Legislation Enacted into Law General Enacted AI Legislation There are two critical general AI laws that were enacted in this session: AB 2885 and AB 2013. AB2885 establishes a standard definition of AI, while AB 2013 requires documentation regarding data used by developers to train the gen AI system or service. According to AB 2885, “Artificial intelligence” is defined as an “engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.” AB 2013 imposes a host of new compliance obligations on developers, as it requires developers to post a high-level summary of the datasets used to train the generative AI system or service on their website. Social Media, Politics and Entertainment AI Legislation Eight new laws fall into this category. They encompass laws intended to protect performers’ rights, prohibit non-consensual deepfake pornography, and extend the laws addressing child sexual abuse materials to AI-generated materials and the use of deceptive AI-generated content in the political context. AB 1831, effective January 1, 2025, expands the scope of existing child pornography laws to include content that is digitally altered or generated by AI systems. This law overlaps with SB 926. SB 926, effective January 1, 2025, criminalizes the creation and distribution of non-consensual deep fake pornography in California. It specifically prohibits distributing realistic deep fake intimate images without consent if the distributor knew or should have known it would cause serious emotional distress. It applies to individuals and businesses in California involved in distributing such images, except those under 18. Victims have a private right of action, allowing them to sue for damages if their images are shared without consent. Enforced by the California Attorney General, violations range from civil penalties, fines or criminal charges, depending on the offense’s severity. SB 981, effective January 1, 2025, requires social media platforms in California to establish reporting tools for users to report cases of sexually explicit digital identity theft. It defines “sexually explicit digital identity theft” as unauthorized, digitally altered images or videos of a person that depict intimate acts or body parts in a way that appears authentic. Platforms must temporarily hide reported content from public view, confirm receipt of the report within 48 hours and provide a status update within seven days. Platforms must complete their assessment within 30 days, extendable to 60 days in certain cases. While the law does not specify penalties or civil liability for noncompliance, failure to meet its requirements could result in legal challenges. AB 2602, effective January 1, 2025, protects individuals from unauthorized use of their digital replicas in personal or professional service contracts. The law applies to new performances, fixed on or after January 1, 2025, allowing digital replicas of a person’s voice or likeness, making such provisions unenforceable if they replace live performances, lack specific usage descriptions, and if the individual was not represented by legal counsel or a union. The enforcement will be by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of Industrial Relations under the direction of the Labor Commissioner. AB 1836, effective January 1, 2025, restricts the use of digital replicas of deceased personalities for commercial purposes without prior consent from their estate, with protections applying retroactively. Violators may be liable for $10,000 or the actual damages suffered, and enforcement is handled through civil litigation. Exceptions to the consent requirement include uses for news, satire, scholarship, documentaries, fleeting appearances or in specific advertisements. The law provides a private right of action, allowing estates to protect a deceased individual’s likeness for up to 70 years after their death. AB 2655, effective January 1, 2025, mandates that large online platforms block or label “materially deceptive” election-related content, particularly deep fakes that could harm a candidate’s reputation or election chances. The law applies to platforms with over one million California users and requires rapid removal of flagged deceptive content within 72 hours, along with labeling tools for identifying false or inauthentic content leading up to elections. Exemptions apply to satire, parody and certain media publications. Candidates, officials and California’s Attorney General may seek injunctive relief, and candidates depicted in deceptive content can file lawsuits for damages. This law, like AB 2839, has been challenged in court, and is currently subject to a stipulated stay of enforcement. AB 2839, effective September 17, 2024, regulates deceptive AI-generated content in election advertisements in California. It prohibits distributing “materially deceptive” content likely to harm a candidate’s reputation or electoral chances, with exceptions for satire, parody and candidates portraying themselves if properly disclosed. The law applies this prohibition within 120 days of an election in California and, in specified cases, 60 days after an election. Candidates and election officials can file for injunctions and seek equitable relief against those distributing misleading content, though the law does not provide for damages. Following a legal challenge, a federal judge substantially limited the law’s scope, allowing only the audio message disclosure requirement to stand, while blocking other provisions due to First Amendment concerns. AB 2355, effective January 1, 2025, mandates clear disclosures on political ads generated or significantly altered by AI, aiming to prevent undisclosed AI use that could mislead voters. This law applies to a specific subset of political ads involving AI-generated or modified images, audio or video, covering ads related to federal, state, or local candidates and ballot measures. Disclosures must state, “Ad generated or substantially altered using artificial intelligence” in a clear format appropriate to the ad’s medium. The law is enforced by the Fair Political Practices Commission, which can impose fines up to $5,000 per violation, though it doesn’t grant a private right of action. Exemptions are provided for genuine news organizations, satire, parody and live news coverage with proper disclosure. Health Care Services—AI Legislation Three new laws regulate the use of AI in connection with health care services, communicating with patients, making medical decisions, and protecting neural and biological data privacy. AB 3030, effective January 1, 2025, requires health care providers using gen AI for patient communications to include a disclaimer indicating AI involvement and instructions for contacting a human health care provider. This law applies to hospitals, clinics and physician offices that use AI to communicate clinical information. Exemptions apply to communications reviewed by a licensed human health care provider. Enforcement falls under the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board, with no private right of action specified. SB 1120, effective January 1, 2025, mandates that only physicians, not AI systems, can make final decisions regarding medical necessity in health insurance utilization reviews. While AI can support administrative tasks, it cannot independently determine medical necessity. Health insurers and health care plans must also disclose when AI is involved in these processes. The California Department of Managed Health Care enforces the law, with penalties for noncompliance, but there is no private right of action. Data Privacy AI Legislation Three other laws address the intersection of AI and data privacy, clarifying that AI-generated data is treated as personal information, requiring disclosures about AI-generated content, and regulating calls involving AI. SB 1223. As neurotechnology advances, Colorado and California have introduced laws to protect neural and biological data privacy. Colorado’s law, effective August 2024, adds protections for “biological” and “neural data” under the Colorado Privacy Act, applying to businesses with large-scale data processing in the state. Similarly, California’s law, effective January 1, 2025, amends the CCPA to categorize neural data as sensitive personal information, with new limits on its use. Both laws require businesses to obtain consent before processing neural data and provide opt-out options for consumers, especially for advertising or profiling purposes. Enforcement will be handled by each state’s attorney general, with penalties for noncompliance, though neither law provides a private right of action for individuals. AB 1008, effective January 1, 2025, updates the CCPA to clarify that AI-generated data is treated as personal information. This law applies to businesses using AI systems capable of generating or processing personal data, requiring them to give consumers the same rights for AI data as for other personal information. California’s AB 1008 acknowledges that AI can create personal data by learning from existing information, mentioning real people in its responses, or guessing details about them. The law ensures that any personal data AI generates is protected just like regular personal information. The California Attorney General and California Privacy Protection Agency will enforce the law, with penalties including civil fines based on violation severity. Although AB 1008 does not grant a separate private right of action, consumers can still sue for data breaches under CCPA protections. SB 942, effective on January 1, 2026, requires “covered providers,” as defined, to provide users with tools to identify AI-generated content that is clear and conspicuous. To comply, these covered providers must offer a free AI detection tool that allows users to assess whether an image, video, audio or a mix of these was made or changed by the provider’s AI system. The law also requires companies to give users the option to add a clear and noticeable label to the images, videos, audio or any mix of these if they were created or altered by the company’s AI. This label must be easy to understand and suited to the type of content. Violations can incur civil penalties of $5,000 per violation, enforceable by the Attorney General or local authorities, although there is no private right of action included. AB 2905, effective January 1, 2025, regulates the use of automatic dialing-announcing devices with artificial voices in California. It applies to telecommunications companies and any entity using prerecorded messages generated or altered by AI for phone calls. To comply, businesses must first notify the recipient with a natural voice that an artificial voice will follow, along with details on the call’s nature, and provide contact information. Consent is required before playing the message. The California Public Utilities Commission enforces the law, with criminal penalties for violations, though there is no private right of action. Government and Education AI Legislation Three laws address the use of AI by government and in schools. SB 896, also known as the “Generative Artificial Intelligence Accountability Act,” regulates California state agencies’ use of gen AI. It requires the Office of Emergency Services to assess gen AI’s risks to critical infrastructure, including potential mass casualty events, with annual reports to the Legislature. Agencies must disclose AI-generated communications and provide human contact options. The Department of Technology must annually update the governor on gen AI developments to ensure transparency, accountability and public safety. AB 2876. The Instructional Quality Commission is tasked to incorporate Model Library Standards, which include media literacy and AI literacy into California’s K-12 curriculum during its next revision after January 1, 2024. They must also consider including media literacy content in the mathematics, science and history-social-science instructional materials when they are adopted January 1, 2025. SB 1288 requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish a working group focused on the safe and effective use of AI in public schools. The group must develop guidance by January 1, 2026, and model policies by July 1, 2026, addressing academic integrity, data privacy and equity. They are also tasked with evaluating current and future AI developments in education. A final report with findings and recommendations is to be submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2027. Vetoed AI Legislation AB 1949, which was vetoed on November 28, 2024, aimed to restrict the use of minors’ data by requiring parental or self-consent for data processing and would have empowered the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to regulate such data use. The bill would have strengthened privacy protections for anyone under 18 by stopping businesses from collecting, using, sharing or selling their personal data without permission. Teens aged 13 to 17 would have been required to give their own consent, while kids under 13 would have required a parent or guardian to give consent. Another bill, SB 1047, known as the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, also faced veto. If enacted, SB 1047 would have held tech companies legally responsible for harms caused by AI models. It would have also required them to implement a “kill switch” to disable AI systems if they were misused or became uncontrollable. Both bills were designed to enhance protections in emerging technology fields, particularly around data privacy and the safe use of AI. Conclusion/Next Steps California’s new AI laws set regulations for artificial intelligence use in various industries, potentially setting a precedent for other states. These enacted laws aim to protect consumers and strengthen data privacy measures. They further emphasize California’s commitment to safeguarding consumer interests. As compliance obligations commenced in January 2025, companies operating in California must act quickly to ensure that appropriate compliance controls are implemented. Companies should also anticipate that this is only the beginning, and that subsequent legislative sessions, both within and outside California, will likely spawn even more AI legislation. 

Let’s face it: in today’s market, being an excellent lawyer isn’t enough. Your clients aren’t just seeking legal acumen—they’re craving an experience that makes them feel understood, valued, and supported throughout their legal journey. The secret sauce? Personalization that transforms routine client interactions into meaningful relationships. Think of client personalization as tailoring a bespoke suit rather than picking one off the rack. Every client brings unique concerns, aspirations, and anxieties to your firm. Your ability to recognize and respond to these individual needs can make the difference between a satisfied client and a passionate advocate for your practice. Let’s dive into five game-changing strategies that will elevate your client experience at every touchpoint: Awareness: From Generic Marketing to Magnetic Messaging Gone are the days of broadcasting generic legal content into the void. Today’s clients can smell cookie-cutter content from a mile away. Instead, imagine this: Your family law practice creates a series of targeted resources that speak directly to your clients’ midnight worries—from that first thought of divorce to concerns about co-parenting arrangements. Each piece of content feels like a conversation rather than a lecture, addressing specific pain points with empathy and experience. For corporate-focused firms, develop sophisticated thought leadership campaigns that anticipate market shifts. (Campaign = more than one piece of content, by the way.) Imagine creating a multi-channel initiative targeting C-suite executives in the renewable energy sector: Your content strategically combines regulatory insight updates, sector-specific ESG compliance guides, and invitation-only virtual roundtables on emerging clean energy legislation. When a potential client engages with your analysis of recent EPA guidelines, your team follows up with tailored insights on how these changes specifically impact their operations and growth strategies. Pro Tip: Don’t just send newsletters; craft strategic content ecosystems. When a prospect engages with any piece of content, follow up with personalized insights that demonstrate your understanding of their industry position and specific challenges. For corporate clients, this might mean connecting recent regulatory changes to their expansion plans; for individual clients, it could be linking legal guidelines to their personal circumstances. Consideration: Turn Consultations into Conversations First consultations shouldn’t feel like interrogations. Transform these crucial meetings into strategic discussions that showcase your preparation and insight. For individual clients: A couple seeking estate planning walks in for a consultation. Instead of generic questions, you’ve already analyzed their current financials as well as publicly available business interests, and prepared targeted recommendations about trust structures that align with their philanthropic goals and family dynamics. For corporate clients: A multinational tech company seeks counsel on cross-border data privacy compliance. Before the first meeting, your team has prepared a comprehensive analysis of their current market presence, regulatory exposure across jurisdictions, and potential growth territories. You arrive with a preliminary gap analysis and strategic roadmap, demonstrating your understanding of their legal challenges and business objectives. Pro Tip: Use technology to your advantage. Implement pre-consultation questionnaires that gather crucial information, but make them intelligent—adapting follow-up questions based on initial responses. This shows respect for your clients’ time while gathering the insights needed to make every minute of the consultation count. Onboarding: Welcome Experiences That Drive Engagement Your client’s decision to choose your firm deserves more than a standard welcome email. Create an onboarding experience that sets the tone for your entire relationship. For individual clients: Deliver a personalized digital portal that includes: Interactive timelines of their legal journey Educational resources tailored to their specific case Secure document sharing and e-signature capabilities Direct scheduling access to their legal team For corporate clients: Launch a comprehensive onboarding program featuring: Executive briefing documents outlining strategic approaches to their legal challenges Custom compliance dashboards integrating with their existing risk management systems Dedicated client success team introductions and communication protocols Training sessions for their in-house legal team on your collaborative tools Quarterly strategy alignment sessions Pro Tip: Create onboarding workflows that adapt to client sophistication levels. Use AI-driven systems to customize the depth and complexity of materials based on client engagement patterns. Retention: Strategic Partnership Management Regular updates shouldn’t feel like routine maintenance. Transform your client communications into strategic touchpoints that demonstrate your ongoing commitment to their success: For individual clients: Implement milestone-based check-ins that combine case updates with proactive legal wellness reviews. For instance, after completing a real estate transaction, schedule quarterly reviews to discuss property tax planning, assessment challenges, or development opportunities. For corporate clients: Establish a comprehensive client success program: Monthly strategy sessions that align legal initiatives with business objectives Quarterly business reviews featuring trend analysis and proactive risk management Custom regulatory monitoring dashboards Early warning systems for emerging legal challenges in their sector Access to exclusive thought leadership events and peer networking opportunities Pro Tip: Leverage data analytics to predict client needs and proactively address concerns before they arise. Use interaction patterns and industry trends to customize the frequency and depth of your communications. Advocacy: Cultivating Strategic Partnerships The conclusion of a matter isn’t the end of your relationship—it’s an opportunity to transform a satisfied client into a strategic partner and advocate: For individual clients: Create personalized case completion packages that include: Handwritten notes highlighting collaborative victories Preventive legal care checklists tailored to their future needs Exclusive access to client appreciation events Referral program benefits that acknowledge their trust in your firm For corporate clients: Develop strategic partnership programs featuring: Executive summaries of achieved outcomes and strategic implications Custom ROI analysis of legal initiatives Invitation to join your client advisory board Co-creation opportunities for thought leadership content Priority access to new service offerings and legal tech innovations Structured feedback programs that influence your service development And don’t underestimate the power of a handwritten note here too Pro Tip: Use client success stories strategically. Work with your advocates to create case studies that resonate with their peer group, positioning both your firm and your client as industry innovators. The Bottom Line: Personalization as a Strategic Advantage In a saturated and highly-competitive legal market, personalization isn’t just a differentiator—it’s a strategic imperative. By crafting tailored experiences at every stage of the client journey, you’re not just building a practice; you’re creating an ecosystem of loyal clients who view your firm as an indispensable strategic partner. Remember: Every client touchpoint is an opportunity to demonstrate that you’re not just another law firm—you’re their trusted advisor, uniquely positioned to advance their interests and committed to their success. Ready to transform your client experience? Start by mapping your current client journey and identifying opportunities for strategic personalization. Your future client relationships (and your firm’s market position) will reflect the investment.

About half of lateral partner moves involve a search firm, according to the 2023 Lateral Partner Satisfaction Survey. Engaging a recruiter isn’t just commonplace, it’s often critical, as search firms have access to networks (and marketplace buzz) that law firms do not. Recruiters are an investment, typically commanding placement fees in the healthy six figures; an AmLaw 50 lateral partner’s headhunting fee averages $598,400. But given that 64 percent of lateral partners will fail to bring their promised book of business, and that 48 percent of laterals will leave within five years, how can law firms maximize their recruiter ROI? After screening thousands of lateral partner candidates—a significant number represented by highly professional recruiters and recruiting firms—we have 10 questions you should be asking to help distinguish the best from the rest: What is the hiring rationale? Why are you bringing this specific candidate to our specific firm? Why are we a good fit for their book of business, industry expertise, practice specialty? How will they advance our goals? The right recruiter will have a working knowledge of your firm’s strengths, and even without a copy of your strategic plan, can articulate why this hire makes sense for both sides. How was this candidate sourced? It’s important to understand the basis of the initial contact: Is this truly a strategic candidate who’s looking seriously at firms like yours, or is this a friend-of-a-friend situation where the search firm is tossing out some breadcrumbs and hoping for a bite? What does the book of business look like? Firms must go beyond composite numbers; a “$5 million book” doesn’t provide enough context for a real assessment. Keep in mind that on average, lateral partner candidates claim to port about 57 percent of the clients they list on their lateral partner questionnaires; the actual portability rate is about 35 percent. If that $5 million book is all tied to one client, odds are against it all coming to your firm. Who filled out this Lateral Partner Questionnaire? When we are screening candidates, it is consistently surprising how many LPQs are actually completed by search firms, not the candidates themselves. Not only is this borderline unethical, it often results in inconsistencies between the LPQ and any kind of screening, making due diligence a longer and more cumbersome process. What are the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses? No candidate is perfect, and the right recruiter should be forthright and transparent. Savvy search firms will have some constructive feedback on even senior rainmaker candidates; if your recruiter presents laterals as too good to be true, they probably are. What questions do you have for us? Another red flag: the recruiter who only wants to talk and never wants to listen. Again, you don’t have to give the search firm your strategic plan, but the right recruiter will show genuine curiosity, not just Google research. They will want to know about the strategic fit, practice area and cross-selling potential—not just for this client, but for future connections, too. How do you define “data”? Some search firms are following the Big Data trend and purporting to offer quantitative screening or proprietary analytics. This should be viewed skeptically, and law firms should absolutely ask to see the math. Search firms are not in the business of gathering independent intelligence; far too often this “data” takes the form of surveys or candidate-provided information. How are you incentivized for long-term success? While every search firm is different, it’s common for recruiters to receive their fees shortly after the lateral partner joins. However, it can take a while to onboard the lawyer and even longer to realize there may be issues with client portability, cultural fit or bad behavior. Granting refunds within months isn’t long enough; law firms should ask for consideration periods of at least 18 to 24 months. Where else are you presenting this candidate? As we said, you want to work with search firms that know your business and bring you lateral partners that fit into your strategic plan and culture. If that is truly what they are doing, they will not be shopping candidates all over the market; what makes a great fit at Firm A can make little sense at Firm B. On a related and crucial note: What’s your timeline? Resist the fire-sale lateral, and run from any search firm that uses strong-arm tactics to pressure you into hiring a candidate quickly. Whether it’s an artificial deadline or buzz about the competition, hurried moves don’t allow you to conduct the necessary pre-hire due diligence that keeps out problematic partners. Ask for the timeframe you need for both due diligence and strategic planning, and be prepared to walk away if the recruiter will not honor it. Even with the very best search firms, we offer two caveats: Let your recruiters bring you candidates; use data to strategically grow identified needs. Recruiters play an important role connecting law firms with laterals who want to move; these transactions make the most of search firms’ networks and expertise. However, when it comes to filling a talent pipeline—and sourcing talent for an office, practice or industry team—it’s far more effective to apply a strategic, data-driven approach that takes into account the entire market, such as Decipher’s custom talent playbooks. Trust but verify. Your search firms should screen candidates before they introduce you, but this is no substitute for true due diligence. Comprehensive due diligence should incorporate objective intelligence as well as human intelligence, but above all, it should be conducted by an independent resource with no financial tie to the ultimate result. Decipher offers three levels of pre-hire due diligence that protect your firm’s revenue and reputation.

Performance reviews can often feel like a necessary evil in the workplace. Managers and employees dread them. They’ve become commonplace for a good reason: when they’re done correctly, they’re effective. A meaningful performance review sparks growth and enhances team dynamics. Often, it’s the singular opportunity for open dialogue, constructive feedback, and genuine recognition. These are the things that employees crave—so why do we hate them so much? Unfortunately, most organizations just go through the motions. But your organization doesn’t have to be that way. Crafting a thoughtful review process not only boosts morale, it also drives productivity. When done right, these discussions empower employees and align their goals with organizational objectives. Research shows that when employees feel they contribute, they are happier and better at their jobs. Ready to transform your approach? Let’s dive into how you can conduct truly meaningful performance reviews. Understanding the Importance of Performance Reviews Let’s pause for a moment—if everyone hates performance reviews, why do we do them? Performance reviews play a vital role in employee development and organizational success. In fact, they might be one of the biggest tools for development and success. How? They provide an opportunity to assess achievements, clarify expectations, and stop attrition. It gives managers a chance to align individual goals with the company objectives. Regular performance evaluations build open communication channels between managers and employees. This dialogue encourages growth and enhances job satisfaction, motivating team members to perform at their best. But in order to get these benefits, your reviews have to be meaningful. How to Conduct a Meaningful Performance Review Conducting a meaningful performance review begins with preparation. In fact, just doing this can transform your performance review process. How can you prepare? Gather relevant data, such as previous reviews and project outcomes, to provide context. If you’re keeping track throughout the year, this should be easy. If you aren’t, it’s a little more time-consuming—but you’ll keep track better next year. Schedule the reviews early enough so everyone can prepare. Don’t rush this! Ensure you have enough time so that discussions can be thorough. As a manager, you know which of your employees talks more. Create an open environment where employees feel comfortable sharing their thoughts. This starts before reviews! Build up trust between managers and team members. When in the session, encourage two-way communication by asking questions and listening actively. As you (and your team) grow, you’ll be able to refine this process. This just a bare-bones skeleton. The magic comes with adjusting the format so that it meets your needs. The ultimate goal? More productive conversations about growth and development. How to Create Growth from Performance Reviews If the ultimate outcome of performance review season is growth, how can you build a process that promotes it? Well, that’s difficult to answer without looking into the DNA of your organization. However, there are six pretty key ways to create growth: Implementing 360-degree feedback. Writing effective performance review comments. Being comprehensive and positive within your reviews. Getting specific with your feedback. Incorporating developmental support. Focusing on the future. Implementing 360-Degree Feedback Implementing 360-degree feedback transforms performance reviews into a comprehensive assessment of an employee’s contributions. What are 360-reviews? It’s when managers gather insights from multiple sources. This could include peers, managers, and even clients. It paints a well-rounded picture of strengths and areas for improvement. For managers with large teams or working different shifts, it gives insights that they might not have otherwise. In some instances, employees may request 360-reviews themselves or managers may request them. It’s good to have both happen to avoid things like bias. Writing Effective Performance Review Comments Written comments help employees understand what their next steps are. Of course, verbally saying them helps too, but giving employees something they can reference is even better.  Writing effective performance review comments isn’t easy. It requires clarity and specificity. A few brief tips to get it right: Use examples to illustrate your points. Focus on behaviors rather than personality traits. Aim for a balance between positive feedback and constructive criticism. Ensure that comments are actionable and supportive in nature. Being Comprehensive and Positive A meaningful performance review should encompass all aspects of an employee’s work. This means the good and the bad. While it can be challenging to talk about the bad for some managers, that’s where the magic is. This balanced approach ensures individuals feel valued while still recognizing opportunities for growth. Maintaining a positive tone is crucial. Focus on what employees do well before discussing challenges. This fosters a supportive environment, encouraging them to embrace feedback and strive for excellence. You don’t want your employee walking away feeling like they got beat up, but you do want to be constructive. It is important to note that high achievers want feedback too! They want to know what they can improve upon over the next year to get to that next level. Sharing Specific Feedback and Examples Specific feedback provides clarity and direction. Instead of vague comments, highlight particular moments where the employee excelled or faced challenges. Within Mitratech’s performance management system, it’s easy to make notes so that your managers have a record of these moments. Then, when it comes time to do annual reviews, they can pull up the information they have. This eliminates recency bias, which some employees use to their advantage. This approach helps them understand exactly what behaviors to continue or adjust. Use concrete examples to illustrate your points. For instance, rather than saying “you did well,” mention a successful project they led or how their teamwork improved departmental efficiency. This level of detail reinforces positive actions while still promoting growth. Incorporating Developmental Suggestions Incorporating developmental suggestions in performance reviews is essential for growth. It allows employees to understand how they can improve and further their careers. Offering specific, actionable advice empowers individuals to take charge of their professional development. When suggesting areas for improvement, align them with the employee’s goals. Provide resources or training opportunities that can help bridge any skill gaps. Mitratech’s performance management system ties directly into our learning management system. When a performance review session is over, managers can enroll their employees in training courses. That way, they are able to see the results and track progress from the day of the review. It’s an easy way to ensure there’s action after the review! Focusing on the Future When conducting a meaningful performance review, shift the focus toward future growth. Encourage employees to set ambitious yet achievable goals. This approach fosters motivation and creates a roadmap for success. Discussing potential career paths can inspire team members to envision their professional journey. Help them identify skills they want to develop or projects they’d like to tackle. By emphasizing forward-thinking dialogue, you empower employees and enhance overall engagement in the workplace. Best Practices for Performance Review Writing When crafting a meaningful performance review, clarity is key. Use straightforward language that conveys your message effectively. Avoid jargon and ensure the feedback is easy to understand. This helps employees grasp their strengths and areas for improvement. Balance positive comments with constructive criticism. Highlight achievements while addressing challenges without being overly harsh. Incorporating specific examples provides context, making feedback more tangible and actionable. Remember, your words shape their future potential within the organization. If you’re writing your review comments while being mad at the employee, struggling with your own work, or just in a bad mood, consider coming back to them with a fresh perspective. Using Action Verbs and Maintaining Balance Using action verbs in performance reviews enhances the clarity and impact of your feedback. Words like “achieved,” “developed,” and “improved” highlight specific contributions, showcasing strengths. This approach offers a precise picture of their performance. Maintaining balance is equally important. Strive to create a dialogue that encourages growth while recognizing successes. Avoiding Common Mistakes in Performance Reviews Many managers stumble by focusing too heavily on negative aspects. This can demoralize employees and hinder their growth. Instead, aim for a balanced approach that highlights strengths along with areas for improvement. Another common pitfall is vague feedback. Generic comments lack impact and clarity, making it difficult for employees to understand how they can improve. Use specific examples to illustrate your points, ensuring your message resonates clearly and constructively. Finally, only doing reviews once a year is a huge mistake. Continuous reviews, particularly in the first year of an employee’s tenure, help to keep the train on the tracks. You want to do the same thing with every promotion. Involving Employees in the Process Involving employees in the performance review process is vital. When employees participate, they feel valued and heard. This engagement fosters ownership of their development and encourages transparency. Encourage open discussions about goals, challenges, and achievements. Allowing employees to share their thoughts leads to more meaningful insights. They can provide context that managers might miss. Create an environment where feedback flows both ways. This collaboration not only strengthens relationships but also enhances the quality of reviews.

As law firms move further into the digital age, CRM (Client Relationship Management) systems have emerged as critical tools in the marketing and business development (BD) toolkit. The CLIENTSFirst 2024 CRM Success Survey (the “Survey”) highlighted a clear takeaway: while most law firms have a CRM system in place, many struggle to fully realize its potential. In a time where technology solutions are transforming industries, law firms must rethink how they use CRM to connect with clients, streamline operations, and ultimately grow. The legal sector, known for its measured pace in adopting change, now finds itself at a crossroads. Law firms are facing mounting pressure to adapt, not only from peer firms but also from clients and prospects who expect faster, more personalized service experiences. While law firms have traditionally used CRM systems for tasks like managing contact lists and organizing event invitations, the real value of CRM lies in its ability to enhance client relationships and generate new revenue streams. However, as revealed in the Survey, satisfaction rates with CRM are alarmingly low. Many firms rated their CRM effectiveness only a 5 out of 10, indicating persistent frustrations with data quality, user adoption, and ROI measurement. With the right approach, CRM can move from being just a contact management tool to a powerful platform that enhances client service, boosts collaboration, and enables firm-wide strategic insights. Here are the top seven steps law firms should take in 2025 to elevate their CRM success and transform how they engage with clients. 1. Commit to Data Quality The foundation of any CRM system is the data it contains. Yet, our survey found that data quality remains a top concern. Poor data—whether incomplete, outdated, or duplicative—leads to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and user frustration. Law firms should consider implementing dedicated data quality measures, such as regular audits, cleaning protocols, and data stewardship. Outsourcing data management can be a cost-effective way to ensure high-quality data without overextending internal resources. 2. Emphasize User Adoption Through Training and Support One of the most significant barriers to CRM success is inconsistent user adoption, especially among attorneys. A CRM system is only valuable if people use it consistently. Firms can address this challenge by offering targeted, ongoing training that aligns with user roles and needs. Consider multiple training formats, such as workshops, quick-reference guides, and individual coaching sessions, to ensure users feel confident and empowered. 3. Shift the Focus from Data Entry to Data Quality Redefining how CRM success is measured can drive more meaningful use of the system. Traditionally, CRM success was often measured by the quantity of data entered. However, our survey suggests that focusing on the information’s utility—how well it supports client service and relationship-building—is more effective. By framing CRM as a tool that adds value rather than an administrative burden, firms can encourage adoption and create a more impactful system. 4. Leverage CRM for Strategic Business Development CRM can be a powerful business development tool, yet many firms still underuse it in this capacity. Advanced CRM features, such as client segmentation, activity tracking, and pipeline management, can help identify growth opportunities and streamline outreach. Firms can leverage these tools to reinforce existing relationships, pursue cross-selling opportunities, and track the ROI of BD efforts. In 2025, firms should strive to use CRM to capture the “big picture” of client interactions. 5. Integrate CRM With Other Key Systems Integration is essential for maximizing CRM’s value. When CRM is linked with systems like timekeeping, billing, and marketing automation, it creates a comprehensive view of client interactions and needs. This integration can streamline workflows and provide deeper insights into client engagement and business outcomes. For example, connecting CRM with billing data allows firms to tie events and sponsorships to new revenue and justify marketing investments more effectively. 6. Ensure Leadership Commitment and Vision Firm-wide CRM adoption requires more than just a great tool; it needs commitment from leadership. Firm leaders set the tone for how technology is used and embraced. When leadership champions CRM as a strategic priority, it fosters a culture that values data-driven insights and continuous improvement. Leaders can also help by communicating CRM’s benefits clearly and demonstrating its impact on client relationships and firm growth. 7. Adapt CRM to Support Firm-Wide Collaboration A well-implemented CRM system can facilitate collaboration across practice areas and offices. By organizing client teams within CRM, law firms can coordinate client service efforts and build a more cohesive client experience. Collaboration tools within CRM can help prevent uncoordinated outreach by centralizing client information, thereby enabling attorneys to work together more effectively. This cross-functional approach not only benefits clients but also uncovers additional service opportunities, such as cross-selling. By focusing on these seven strategies, law firms can transform their CRM systems from a tool of convenience to a cornerstone of client engagement and business development. With intentional, data-driven practices, CRM can become a pivotal resource that aligns with the needs of clients, attorneys, and firm leaders alike, ultimately positioning the firm for success in a competitive legal landscape. 

Law firms looking to expand into new markets must determine the best strategy. Some start from scratch, open a satellite office and attempt to grow it. Others seek to buy existing law firms and put them under their umbrella. The potential pros and cons of each strategy are below. Does Buying Existing Law Firms Make Sense? One of the most common ways some law firms expand into new markets is to buy an existing law firm. In many respects, most law firms consider purchasing an existing law firm the go-to way to grow. Many assume they can buy the firm and hit the ground running. One pro of this approach is that the existing law firm probably already has clients. When the law firm has clients already, it may feel that it can begin making a profit on the new venture relatively quickly, as opposed to starting a new office with no clients. Another pro is that the law firm may already have a brick-and-mortar office, employees, and the equipment to run it. Thus, the law firm may not have to invest much time and money in locating an office, getting the equipment and supplies, and interviewing staff. Lastly, many law firms assume their lawyers have built positive goodwill in the community. With this goodwill, many theorize that repeat clientele and referral-based businesses will readily come to the firm. What Are the Cons of Buying an Existing Law Firm? While buying an existing law firm may have some pros, there are also cons that law firms must consider. One is the price to buy the existing law firm. If an existing law firm is looking to buy at a reasonable or below-market price, it may be attractive to purchase the existing office. But with many existing law firms, they may be looking for a high or top dollar price to sell. For many law firms, buying out an existing law firm can be substantially more expensive than simply opening a brand-new office. Another con is that many law firm employees conduct themselves similarly. When another law firm buys them out, it might be unrealistic to expect the employees to instantly integrate into that purchasing firm’s way of doing things. For this reason, starting anew with employees who are trained in the purchasing firm’s processes can be more manageable. Third, while an existing law firm might have an existing brick-and-mortar office and equipment, most law firms can just as easily purchase or rent the same space or equipment at a similar price. By not purchasing an existing law firm, the law firm is also not signing onto another law firm’s debt, leases, or contracts. Lastly, while a prior law firm may have some reputation within the community, there is little telling whether that reputation is good or bad or worth purchasing. For many law firms, it might make sense to open a new expansion based on their enterprise goodwill. While some law firms may want to consider buying an existing law firm, many ought to open a brand new office, rent space, hire new employees, and open the expansion without purchasing an existing one. To open a new office, most law firms can start with single-attorney executive space, market appropriately, and get larger space once there are enough clients for that to make sense.

The average turnover for AmLaw 200 firms is 26.3 percent, according to analysis by Decipher Investigative Intelligence—so simply put, for every four lawyers at your firm, one will swap out every year. “Turnover” can be a loaded term, and one that is frequently misunderstood. Let’s start with the math: To determine the state of turnover in the legal profession, Decipher examined every firm in the AmLaw 200 to chart lawyer hires and departures over the past four years. This total accounts for a firm’s total “volatility”—the sum of people entering and exiting. We then divide the volatility by the firm’s total headcount; this resulting turnover rate measures the extent of change happening in a given year. This is the best way to think about turnover: a measure of the change happening to a firm, its roster and its culture. Just like change itself, turnover is not inherently “good” or “bad,” as two firms with dramatically different circumstances can have the same score. Consider two firms, both with 1,000 lawyers: Firm A is widely known for having a collaborative culture; in a given year, no one leaves, but it acquires a team of 300 lawyers, all with portable business and positive attitudes. Firm B loses its entire corporate practice—300 lawyers strong—in a dramatic exit that generated dozens of headlines and lost far more clients. Both have the same turnover rate: 30 percent. So, to assess your own turnover, you can start with the quantitative, but it’s imperative that you dive into the qualitative. While the specifics will vary for every firm, here is a helpful approach to better understand (and act upon) turnover at your firm. Start with a straightforward sort. Compile lists of all lawyers who joined and left your firm within a given year. From there, it’s helpful to further segment: Voluntary: Lawyers who joined or left of their own accord. Involuntary: Lawyers whose decision was guided by other forces; in addition to terminations and layoffs, this can include mergers or acquisitions, as 99 percent of the individuals acquired were not directly involved in the negotiation. 

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. 

A good lawyer biography provides an overview of your strengths and accomplishments, tells an engaging story, and describes the benefits you bring to clients (as it draws in your reader), piquing their interest so they want to learn more. It does not recount your entire career, list every case you won, and document every deal you closed since you graduated from law school. Five do’s and don’ts to make your biography stand out, whether on LinkedIn, your firm profile, or in the program notes for your next speaking gig: 1. Lead Off with How You Help People (Not Just Your Title) You need to tell people what you do and how you can help them. “Jennifer Jones is a Partner in the Litigation Group” does neither. Instead, make the opening sentence a value proposition that clearly states how you help clients, like: “Jennifer protects biotech startups against product liability theft and losses.” If that’s all that visitors to your website read, they’ll know what you do—what you’re good at—and what you can do for them. If your practice covers multiple disciplines, include that in your introductory paragraph as well. “In addition, she helps IP rights holders monetize their intellectual property and has particular strengths managing pharmaceutical and biotechnology patent portfolios across the globe.” 2. Tell Stories Client stories are engaging testimonies of your skills and commitment to clients. Always include one or two representative examples of your work in the text of your bio to demonstrate your experience and show readers how you solve the business and legal problems they face. ...demonstrate your experience Ideally, you’ll be able to tie practice strengths into the case studies you provide. “Biotech clients count on Jennifer’s understanding of sophisticated technology—she has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Yale—to guide them as they pursue licensing and sales opportunities for their products. In one such instance, she helped a small biotech startup license their genetic engineering process to a global pharmaceutical company for an eight-figure sum.” 3. Don’t Talk Too Much When it comes to bios, less is often more. That doesn’t mean that you should exclude significant capabilities and practice strengths, but rather that you should always maintain a critical eye on the length of your bio when deciding what to discuss. Ask yourself if this skill or that experience is relevant to the audience you’re trying to reach. If so, keep it in. If not, consider highlighting it elsewhere, like in a representation list or with a practice group designation. Ask yourself if this skill or that experience is relevant to the audience you’re trying to reach.Of course, there’s no ‘right length’ for bios, particularly since they must complement your firm’s style and conventions and align with the time you’ve been practicing. Still, my rule of thumb is typically between 250 and 350 words for senior associates and junior and mid-level partners. First-year associate bios will be shorter, in the 100-150 word range, and those for senior partners and firm leadership can easily approach 500 words. 4. Use Plain English Nobody likes legalese. Not other lawyers, not CEOs and business managers, not even your mother. (Really. Just ask her.) And certainly no one wants to dig through legalese in a lawyer biography. Use plain English phrasings to make your bio easy—and enjoyable—to read. Avoid overly technical descriptions of client problems you’ve solved, lawsuits you’ve argued, and negotiations you’ve handled. Simple and relatable language that everyone understands will make your talents stand out so that readers won’t be left scratching their heads wondering what you actually do. 5. Don’t Hide Your Personality Remember the proverb “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”? Turns out it’s true for lawyers, too. Describing your activities outside the office gives readers the complete picture of who you are, what you care about, and how you spend your time. Extracurricular activities—professional and personal—can also be a great conversation starter. Law is a relationship business, and those relationships are often boosted by affinities you share with peers and prospects. Clients want to hire real people to do their work, people with personalities and interests that go beyond their practice. Whether you’re president of an industry trade association, a long-time runner who’s completed marathons in 25 states, or a volunteer at the local food bank, talk about it in a sentence or two at the end of your bio to illustrate what you do when you’re not working. Your bio should tell your story, what you’re good at, and why clients should hire you. Now get writing.

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.

The word “disruption” triggers heavy, often negative, images or connotations. Almost no one likes disruptions, such as not being able to go to work due to illness or Netflix lagging due to bad internet as you’re trying to watch Lucifer. And even over the past two months, the lives of millions of people have been disrupted due to war and conflict. The instability and uncertainty that are generated by disruption can be extremely unsettling. But as much as we fear and dislike disruption, there’s also plenty of reason to enjoy and even celebrate disruption. That’s because the definition of disruption is a break in the status quo, or some interruption in the normal way of carrying out some activity. In other words, there’s no reason why disruption must always be bad. There are many cases when disruption has been a force of good that has greatly enriched the lives of everyday, ordinary people. The definition of disruption is a break in the status quo, or some interruption in the normal way of carrying out some activity. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is frequently described as a source of disruption, and that it will steal the jobs of hard-working individuals. It is true that AI is a disruption, but before you cave in to all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), don’t forget that AI is a source of positive disruption. What the naysayers often leave out is that AI is not just a positive disruption capable of greatly improving peoples’ lives, but it’s a game-changing innovation. What Is Innovation? In general terms, innovation can be described as creating something that generates value. To complete the loop, the amount of value generated often depends on how innovative that something is. Innovations can occur with both emerging as well as time-tested tech. An example of the former might be augmented or virtual reality, while cell phones and smartphones are an instance of the latter (keeping in mind that telephones were invented in 1876). It’s also possible that an innovation can be the result of combining both emerging and established tech. Types of Innovation When it comes to innovation, there’s no “one-size-fits-all” definition. Just like we mentioned that innovation can appear from emerging tech, established tech, or a mix of the two, there are also several types of innovation. Some are small steps that build off of previous ones, whereas others are massive, life-altering, game-changing leaps (you know, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”). There are many ways to categorize innovation. But one of the simpler approaches is to think about it as if it were a graph. On the y-axis, you have the “newness” of the technology. In other words, how young and novel it is. On the x-axis, it’s the impact the product or service will have on the market. With both axes set, you can divide the graph into four main quadrants: incremental (low newness, low impact), sustaining (low newness, high impact), radical (high newness, low impact), and disruptive (high newness, high impact).

Lawyers and professional services providers: Do you want to thrill your clients, customers, prospects, and other contacts (CPs)? If so, either become “ultra-responsive” or at least consider leveling up your responsiveness game and tool kit. The fact is this: In this current hybrid work world, the expectations, platforms, and tools available for and components of responsiveness have changed considerably! Studies show that many CPs now expect, want, and may need to reach a lawyer or other professional instantly, or receive some type of response “right away”—and by right away, CPs mean in less than one hour. Don’t believe me? Ask your clients, including (but not limited to) the general counsel, in-house counsel, C-suite executives, deal makers, referral sources, internal professional staff members, and other professionals you serve and work with. Decades of studies and surveys have shown (and continue to find) that the #1 complaint CPs have about lawyers (and other professionals) is their lack of timely responsiveness. This lack of timely responsiveness applies to ALL lawyers, whether a plaintiff or defense firm, and whether serving individuals, corporations, nonprofits, or any other entities, and applies to many other professional services providers too. Lack of timely responsiveness leaves CPs feeling like you are too busy for them, they are unimportant, they/their matters are not a priority or important to you, and generally are unwanted and/or unloved. Plus, lack of timely responsiveness threatens lawyers’, law firms’, and other professionals’ existing client and other relationships, reduces your new business pipeline, and can negatively impact future growth. The standard response time in the legal industry to get back to a CP used to be within two hours, but now it’s more like five minutes! Why? Because most CPs seek to contact a lawyer due to a stressful, important, or urgent situation/matter. Most CPs these days (especially C-suite decision-makers, business owners, and entrepreneurs) are in a hurry, need legal advice/service fast, and don’t have a lot of time to waste waiting—for anything. What Is the Number of Rings (and Total Time) Before Your Voicemail Picks up When Someone Calls Your Office and Cell Phone? If any of your phone lines make a caller wait for more than 15-30 seconds before your voicemail picks up, you have a problem. Many hard-driven professionals and clients are in a hurry, are short on time, and do not want to wait for a minute or more before they can leave you a voicemail (if you don’t actually answer within three rings, which is optimal). Check your setup now and minimize the number of rings before a personalized voicemail greeting picks up. The maximum number of rings should be five (but ideally, three). Do You Have a Personalized Voicemail Message on Both Your Office and Cell? You should take the 5-10 minutes needed to personally record a short and sweet voicemail recording on all your phones. Include the name and phone number for your assistant or someone else in the firm whom a caller can contact if they have an immediate/urgent issue. Return calls within three hours. Work with your secretary/assistant to have him or her return your calls within three hours if you are unable to return them yourself. If you are too busy, don’t think it’s important, feel as though you are too important and high ranking or simply don’t have time to record a personalized voicemail greeting, then (and only if it’s truly necessary) ask an assistant to record one for you, but be sure it’s short and optimized. If you have not recorded a personalized greeting on both your office and cell, consider doing so now. What Secure Messaging Options Do You Have and Use? According to the Legal Trends Report published annually by Clio, many CPs (especially younger ones) would rather text or email their lawyer than talk on the phone or face-to-face. They prefer not to call your firm or meet with you in real life. Most of us in the legal industry know that standard text platforms are not very secure, and while Google Voice provides a free forwarding number and texting through an app or browser, it may not be very secure either. So, ask yourself: Are you using stand-alone and secure messaging apps like Signal or What’s App for business? If not, ask your clients whether they would like secure messaging as a communication option. Does Your Website Have a Chat or Contact Us Option That Is Staffed Regularly? If your firm has a chat or “Contact Us” feature on your website but no one checks it or responds regularly to inquiries and questions, consider improving your process. If your firm does not have a way for CPs to contact you on your website, create one ASAP and be sure to respond in a timely manner (i.e., as close to “right away” as is possible). Optimize Your Email Email Response Time—Now that “right away” is the new standard, ask yourself: How long (minutes/hours/days) does it take for me to respond to 1) what I perceive as important and urgent emails, and 2) the emails I receive that I do not perceive as important or urgent? Use Your Assistant/Professional Staff: Arrange to give your primary assistant access to your email (not the contents of the email, just the occurrence of incoming emails), and train them regarding how to respond for you. For example, “Sue is in court all day today. Please let me know if your email is urgent, and I can text her. Thank you.—Assistant Name, contact info.” Use OOO (Out of Office) Messages: If you are a lawyer or other professional who does not currently practice a disciplined, daily email approach, or if you are super busy and not always able to check and read your email at least once a day (ideally four to five times daily, based on CPs’ expectations and “need right aways” as described above), consider creating an OOO message and then use it every day. For example, “Thank you for your email. Due to my workload, I only check my email twice a day, at around 8 am MST and 3 pm MST. If you need to reach me urgently, please (either) call my cell _______ or contact NAME (assistant/backup) email, phone.” Check Your Email Signature: Ask your clients whether your email signature is received in their inbox as an attachment. If so, streamline and optimize yours. The email firewalls in many (especially large) companies and organizations either block images or convert email signatures into images, which is a small but frequent annoyance to clients because they are not sure when an attachment is substantive, especially when they are on the go, using their cell/mobile. Your Presence on and Use of Social Media Platforms, Especially LinkedIn: Is your LinkedIn profile optimized? If you don’t think LinkedIn is a valuable tool and you don’t spend a lot of time on LinkedIn, check out the great two-part article, “Why Lawyers Need LinkedIn” by Ross Fishman. If you are not using LinkedIn to research, keep in contact, and stay in touch via its LinkedIn messaging feature, you are missing out. Don’t let the “I’m too busy” excuse impede your responsiveness as described above (and ultimately your success). The fact is, if you have a job (and even those who don’t have a job but raise children or care for a family), you are busy almost ALL the time.  We all need to force ourselves to make time to schedule and do these types of very important yet not necessarily urgent tasks so that we stay in tune with the times. Or, maybe hire a virtual assistant to help. 

What Should the Legal Industry Expect? With new technologies frequently surfacing during an eDiscovery review, it is time for legal departments to take a deeper dive into blockchain so they can be prepared for what is to come. Legal professionals are aware of what blockchain is and may even use this technology for some business functions like smart contracts or payment for services via cryptocurrency. However, blockchain is still evolving and there are many unknowns about how this technology operates and what role it will play in both the legal industry and general business. Blockchain—The Basics Blockchain is a complex type of distributed ledger technology that the legal industry is still learning about. A few important distinguishing features include: Users can record transactions over a distributed network that is very secure. Identities of the individuals involved in a transaction are not disclosed. The network can be either public or private. The transactions are permanent. The blockchain also creates a recorded transaction history that users can access, but never alter. Third-party facilitators are unnecessary. An established protocol instructs computers on the network about when a transaction is verified and should be added to the ledger. This is commonly referred to as mining and is the only way a transaction can become a permanent part of the blockchain. All of these features make blockchain appealing to individuals wanting to carry out secure transactions where asset ownership is permanently recorded without the need for a bank. It will only continue to gain popularity and continue to branch out to other areas besides virtual currency. Especially if smart contracts gain more acceptance, legal departments will start to see increasing exposure to blockchain technology with their corporate clients. P  redicted eDiscovery Implications Just as with any emerging data source, litigators need to be ready for collection and review hurdles that blockchain could impose. As more businesses utilize blockchain, it will pop up as discoverable electronically stored information (ESI) in cases and investigations. To prepare for this, legal departments should anticipate potential challenges, develop new protocols, and keep informed on new blockchain developments. Being able to advise corporate clients about what to be mindful of when deploying or encountering blockchain technology and accounting for this in information governance plans will limit eDiscovery issues in the future. The first step is to anticipate what will be easy and what will be challenging when dealing with blockchain as a source of ESI during litigation. Blockchain data contains several features that are attractive to litigators. The fact that the transactions are permanent and do not allow for editing ensures that a party cannot tamper with any relevant blockchain ESI which can limit the time spent on eDiscovery disputes (like spoliation) and aids with data authentication. However, the fact that blockchain transactions conceal identities makes it difficult to prove that a party or other person relevant to the case participated in a certain transaction. Legal departments should account for extra costs and time to track down proper custodians, establish identities, and decode blockchain transactions. Utilizing experts and AI-powered solutions may help accelerate this process and yield efficient results. These resources could provide methods to strip anonymity from transactions that are relevant to litigation. Additionally, when collecting blockchain data, lawyers need to prepare for any obstacles or unique methods they may need to deploy. Whether the data is easily exportable will highly affect collection practices. From what we know about blockchain, this may be an easier task than anticipated. The fact that the transactions take place over a secure network should make collection an easier feat than some unstructured data like chat messages or various dark data sources. Still, it is important to talk about blockchain collection with a legal department’s eDiscovery vendor to understand the process and plan eDiscovery workflows. Information Governance Considerations Even though the data contained in a blockchain transaction is reliable, there will definitely be more steps and new considerations—especially as the technology matures. As such, when a party needs to authenticate blockchain data as evidence for a case, they should expect to utilize additional resources and encounter evidentiary roadblocks. To avoid expending unnecessary resources, it is important to weigh the cost benefit of using this data as trial evidence. Organizations should account for these costs and concerns in their litigation readiness plans. To be proactive, legal departments should start talking about blockchain and resulting information governance considerations with their corporate clients. Taking this approach aligns with the current trend of taking a more business-centered approach with legal transformation efforts and ways to be more efficient. Besides accounting for blockchain in litigation readiness plans, organizations should have policies around using blockchain for internal and external business purposes. Updating data classification and mapping protocols will also help better manage these transactions if they become discoverable ESI in a future case. Other helpful actions include monitoring new blockchain developments, providing training opportunities to staff, and seeing how courts handle future blockchain eDiscovery issues. It is important to remember that how this technology influences litigation will change as legal departments discover best practices for eDiscovery workflows pertaining to blockchain. Therefore, it is crucial to keep track of any case law and court rulings on blockchain and eDiscovery to help refine practices. Just as lawyers have recently seen the courts respond to eDiscovery obstacles and arguments pertaining to AI usage, blockchain questions will undoubtedly follow.