Industry Insight

If you’re thinking of hanging your own shingle in 2026, know there’s plenty of upside: A Clio survey shows that legal entrepreneurs are happier with their client relationships, their mental and emotional wellness, and their overall professional lives. The Federal Bar Association, meanwhile, described the solo attorney as the “surprising outlier” to a “profession long plagued by burnout, stress, and mounting dissatisfaction,” citing data from ALPS Insurance: 74 percent of solo practitioners are satisfied (or very satisfied) with their current professional lives; only 9 percent are dissatisfied to any degree. 66 percent appreciate the flexibility of the gig, which contributes to “personal fulfillment and enjoyment.” To be sure, this elevated state of entrepreneurship isn’t a given; it takes considerable work and, often, more than a bit of good luck. But aspiring law firm owners can set up for success with a few foundational steps early: Before You Launch Start with a simple business plan. This doesn’t have to be overly complicated; in fact, the simpler the better. But by taking the time to write down a simple framework for your business, you will be able to focus your time, energy and resources in your critical first year. What is our basic positioning? (We do X for Y) Who is our ideal client? Why are we an ideal solution for them? Why are we a better choice than our peers? Where do we want to be in three to five years? Don’t forget to make some eliminations here, too. As the saying goes, “The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.” What cases and clients will you purposefully not accept? Where are you truly not a great option? (Think about building referral relationships here.) Invest in a strong first impression. Your logo and website should give confidence to both you and your clients. This is becoming increasingly important with your younger clients, who are more likely to do their own research than rely on referrals. Indeed, Gen Z and Millennial clients care more about a lawyer’s website (49 percent and 48 percent, respectively) than Gen X and Boomers (34 percent and 21 percent, respectively). I participated in a panel discussion with Missouri Lawyers Weekly, “From Attorney to Entrepreneur,” and one new legal entrepreneur said she decided to build a solid visual identity early because she wanted her clients to feel safe and secure despite choosing a brand new law firm. A clean, modern, professional—and mobile-friendly!—website signals that you are serious. Beware the pitfalls that abound in the marketing arena: Avoid DIY design tools that may leave you not owning your firm’s mark. Similarly, make sure you own, not rent, your website and URL. Make sure your website vendor uses a common, accessible CMS like WordPress, so you are not hostage to a proprietary platform. Determine what (and when) to delegate. You are an excellent lawyer, but owning a business carries a new set of demands, from invoicing to social media to fixing the dang printer. These administrative tasks pile up: According to Thomson Reuters, attorneys in small firms spend about 60 percent of their time practicing law, while solos spend just 55 percent of their time practicing law. The administrative burden of running a firm not only takes away from your billable time, it takes brain space and emotional energy. (And “winging it” can bring costly mistakes when it comes to your financial records and taxes.) Think about the business side of the firm, and start a list of the allies you may need. If your first call is to a virtual CFO or law firm financial planner, they can help you project when cash flow will allow you to hire additional experts. After You Launch Make sure people know how to find your firm. Your new law firm has no digital footprint. Set up your startup firm on Google Business and Bing Places for Business, or look at a service like Yext that can manage your business listings on a variety of platforms. Meanwhile, make sure you capture people who may search for your name, not the firm’s; these may be referrals or old connections you missed in the outreach campaign. We want to make sure they find you at your new firm (and not call the old place). Updating your LinkedIn profile is a must; I recommend putting a press release about the firm launch on a search-engine-friendly distribution service like PRWeb. Make direct outreach. Make a list of everyone you know. Mine your current email contacts, and download your LinkedIn connections. Then sort them into groups: Hot Contacts: These can be people who match your ideal client profile right now (remember doing that above?) or people who are in direct contact with your ideal client profile. In short, these are the humans you know in the best position to give you business. (Make sure to mind solicitation guidelines if you are in a consumer-facing practice.) Warm Contacts: These are people who may enter your ideal client profile at some point, or people who are one or two degrees removed. For example, if you are typically hired by CEOs, this list could be vice presidents or department heads. Cold Contacts: These are the people you can’t imagine giving you business. Reach out to them anyway. You never know what they (or their network) are sitting on, and your new business will not suffer from more people knowing what you do. After you sort them, reach out. My first day “open for business,” I emailed the hot contacts; the second day, the warm contacts; the third day, the cold contacts. Make these individual and personal. In your words, the email should convey: “Here’s what I’m doing now.” Set the table, and make it straightforward. I wanted to reach out to tell you I’ve started my own firm, Clark Kent & Associates. “Keep me in mind for … ” This is the most important part: It’s where you tell your network the kind of work you want to do and for whom you want to do it. Please keep me in mind for trademark prosecution or litigation involving consumer brands. “Here’s why you can trust me.” Reinforce your credentials. Not all of your contacts are intimately familiar with your expertise, and even those that are could use a reminder. Over the past decade, I’ve managed trademark portfolios for companies in retail, hospitality, and the beauty industry. I’ve been recognized by World Trademark Review and Best Lawyers in America. “Here’s why I’m doing this.” Share the passion that led you to start your own firm, and why working with you is better than the alternatives. I believe trademark clients are better served by a flat-fee model, and I’m excited to launch a firm with predictable pricing and no budget surprises. “Here’s how to learn more … ” Invite them to learn more, and thank them for their attention. This is where you can also insert some personalization (e.g., it was great to see you last month, hope the kids are well, how about those Chiefs). You can learn more about my new firm at [link]. Thank you for your consideration, and best wishes for the year ahead. Focus your social media. There are myriad ways to publicize your new firm on social media, but remember, you have a firm to run now. It’s OK to not be on every platform; it’s far better to pick one strategic option and be consistent there. LinkedIn is a natural fit for many new law firms, as your referral sources and business clients are already there. If your ideal client skews more toward young consumers, there are opportunities on Instagram and TikTok. (Although producing visually engaging, algorithm-pleasing content is more work than many expect.) Think about where your clients are, and show up consistently there. (For other platforms, consider claiming your name/handle, and make a post showing where they can find you and your firm updates.) Update your rankings and credentials. If you have been recognized by Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, Benchmark Litigation, or so on, reach out and let them know about the new firm. This is increasingly important as AI tools like ChatGPT are shown to scour attorney ranking sites for their search output. Have entrepreneur friends. Running your own business is hard. It’s freeing and affirming and often fun, but it’s also hard. According to Forbes, 50.2 percent of entrepreneurs struggle with anxiety; 45.8 percent deal with high stress; and 26.9 percent feel lonely or isolated. It’s imperative to have friends who can relate—friends who understand the pressure of making payroll, friends who can celebrate the wins, and friends who can tell you how they fixed such-and-such. If you don’t have those people in your circle yet, explore your bar association’s Solo/Small Firm Section, or drop by a startup networking group in your community. (Or reach out to me, I’ve been there too.) Let your network help you. Your friends and family will be excited for you (and they should be, starting a firm is a big deal!). You will get some questions along the lines of “How can we help?” Have some answers ready for your contacts who won’t necessarily be clients Some examples: Follow your new firm on social media. Share or comment on your announcement post. Visit your website to show Google there’s interest. If your contacts are attorneys, they can endorse you on Avvo or Martindale. One final note: Everyone will want to buy you lunch when you have “just started out.” Those offers will dry up after a few months. Take the lunches. 

Last week, the American Arbitration Association announced something that should have every lawyer cheering: an AI-powered arbitrator for construction disputes that promises to cut costs by 35% and resolution time by 20%. Instead, the legal profession clutched its pearls. Critics warned of depersonalized justice, algorithmic bias, and the death of advocacy as we know it. They’re missing the point entirely. The real crisis isn’t AI making decisions. It’s that our current system has priced most Americans out of justice altogether. For far too long, the powers that be have argued that the solution to the access to justice crisis is more pro bono work. It’s not. The solution is reforming the way neutrals process cases. Hearings on the merits are good for justice. Disputes can be resolved on right and wrong and not just might making right. The System Is Already Broken Right now, someone with a legitimate $50,000 construction dispute faces an impossible calculation. Traditional arbitration will cost them $15,000 to $30,000 in fees before their lawyer even opens a file. A court case? Add two to three years to the timeline and double the cost. For many claimants, the math is simple: the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. They walk away from valid claims because the system designed to resolve disputes has become too expensive and too slow to access. This isn’t theoretical. Civil cases wait years for their day in court. Plaintiffs with serious injuries can’t get to a jury. Defendants who could prove their innocence in months instead spend years under the cloud of unresolved accusations. Families navigate divorces in a system so clogged that temporary orders become semi-permanent arrangements. The promise of justice delayed is justice denied has become our legal system’s operating principle. When resolution takes years and costs six figures, only corporations and the wealthy can afford to see cases through to completion. Everyone else settles for whatever they can get or abandons their claims entirely. What the AAA Actually Built The AAA’s AI arbitrator, set to launch in November for construction disputes, promises something the legal profession should celebrate: resolution in months, not years, at a fraction of traditional costs. The system claims 35% cost savings and 20% time savings for document-based construction disputes. Those aren’t incremental improvements. They’re transformative. More importantly, the AAA designed this system the right way. It keeps humans in the loop. It operates transparently. It builds on 99 years of arbitration expertise rather than trying to replace human judgment entirely. The AI analyzes documents, identifies issues, and suggests resolutions. Human arbitrators validate the outputs and make final decisions. This isn’t science fiction. It’s practical technology applied to a real problem: too many legitimate disputes never get resolved because the traditional process costs too much and takes too long. The Hypocrisy of Legal AI Critics Here’s what makes the criticism especially rich: lawyers already use AI constantly. We use AI-powered research tools to find cases. We use predictive analytics to value settlements. We use document review platforms that deploy machine learning to identify relevant materials. Large firms have used these technologies for years to deliver faster, cheaper services to corporate clients. But suggest using similar technology to make dispute resolution accessible to regular people, and suddenly we’re destroying the sanctity of the legal profession. The objection isn’t to AI in law. It’s to AI making legal services affordable for those who currently can’t access them. The legal profession’s resistance to accessible AI isn’t about protecting justice. It’s about protecting billable hours. Speed Matters More Than Lawyers Admit The legal profession has convinced itself that slower is more careful, that every case needs years of discovery and motion practice to reach just outcomes. This is self-serving nonsense. Many disputes don’t need exhaustive litigation. They need resolution. A homeowner fighting with a contractor over $30,000 in defective work doesn’t need three years of document requests and depositions. They need someone neutral to review the contract, inspect the work, and make a decision. The AI arbitrator can facilitate that process in months. An injured plaintiff watching their medical bills pile up while waiting for a court date three years away doesn’t benefit from our deliberate pace. They need their case heard while the evidence is fresh and before financial desperation forces an unfavorable settlement. Families in divorce proceedings watching their children grow up amid unresolved custody disputes don’t need more process. They need finality so everyone can move forward. The legal system’s addiction to process serves lawyers’ economic interests more than clients’ actual needs. We’ve built a professional moat around dispute resolution and convinced ourselves it’s a temple of justice. The Real Question About Bias Critics worry about algorithmic bias in AI systems, and those concerns deserve serious attention. But let’s be honest about the bias baked into our current system. Our traditional process is biased toward those who can afford to wait and pay. It’s biased toward corporate defendants who can outspend individual plaintiffs. It’s biased toward parties with resources to conduct extensive discovery, hire expensive experts, and file endless motions. The AAA’s approach includes human oversight specifically to catch AI errors and ensure fair outcomes. That’s more transparency and accountability than exists in many human arbitrations, where arbitrators provide minimal reasoning for their decisions and appeals are nearly impossible. Perfect is the enemy of good. If we wait for flawless AI systems before deploying them, we perpetuate a human system that’s already deeply flawed and fundamentally inaccessible to most people who need it. What This Means for Access to Justice The AAA’s AI arbitrator points toward a future where dispute resolution could actually be accessible. Imagine a system where a small business cheated by a vendor could get binding resolution in six months for $5,000. Where a homeowner could enforce warranty rights without mortgaging their house to pay legal fees. Where injured parties could get compensated while they’re still dealing with medical treatment rather than years later. This isn’t about replacing lawyers or eliminating advocacy. It’s about creating a tier of dispute resolution that currently doesn’t exist. A tier between “figure it out yourself” and “spend $50,000 on lawyers.” A tier that could handle thousands of legitimate disputes that our current system simply abandons. The technology exists right now. The AAA is deploying it. Courts should be racing to follow, not throwing up roadblocks in the name of protecting professional standards that mostly protect professional incomes. The Path Forward The legal profession needs to stop treating efficiency as the enemy of justice. We need to acknowledge that our current system fails most people most of the time. We need to embrace technology that can make legal services accessible rather than defending a status quo that serves lawyers better than clients. The AAA isn’t proposing AI judges for murder trials or complex commercial litigation. They’re using technology to resolve document-based construction disputes faster and cheaper than traditional methods. This is exactly the kind of measured, supervised deployment that should guide legal AI development across the entire justice system. If it works as promised, every area of law should be asking what comes next. Small claims. Small personal injury cases. Simple contract cases. Consumer complaints. Family law matters. Employment disputes. There’s a massive universe of legal disputes that could be resolved faster, cheaper, and better with the right technology and appropriate human oversight. The alternative is continuing to tell millions of Americans with legitimate legal claims that justice is available only if they can afford to wait years and spend tens of thousands of dollars. That’s not a system worth defending. That’s a system begging for disruption. The wheels of justice grind slowly, we tell ourselves, but they grind exceedingly fine. The truth is, they grind so slowly that most people never reach them at all. The AAA’s AI arbitrator is a step in the right direction. Every lawyer who cares about actual access to justice rather than theoretical access should be asking: what dispute resolution problem can we solve next? The legal profession should be leading this transformation, not standing in its way. 

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Arbitration Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) __ Cal.5th __, 2025 WL 2302229: The California Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the Court of Appeal. It affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision concluding that California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98 is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). But the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and disapproved numerous recent Court of Appeal decisions, concluding that section 1281.98 does not require an automatic loss of contractual arbitration rights whenever a party fails to pay arbitration fees within 30 days, finding no indication that the Legislature intended to strip companies and employers of their contractual right to arbitration where nonpayment of fees results from a good faith mistake, inadvertence, or other excusable neglect. Section 1281.98 does not displace background statutes permitting relief to a breaching party in certain circumstances. The Court of Appeal was directed to remand the matter to the trial court for consideration of whether defendant might be excused for its failure to timely pay arbitration fees, such that the stay of litigation should not be lifted and the parties should be returned to arbitration, and whether the delay resulted in compensable harm to plaintiff. (August 11, 2025.) Employment Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) __ Cal.5th __, 2025 WL 2414467: The California Supreme Court addressed the good faith defense of employers to the default rule that employees who prove minimum wage violations are entitled to liquidated damages under Labor Code, § 1194.2, and whether a trial court may consider a claim under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (§ 245 et seq.; the “Paid Sick Leave law”) that an employee raises in the context of their employer’s appeal to the superior court of a Labor Commissioner ruling. (§ 98.2, subd. (a).) The California Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeal on both issues, ruling that ignorance of the law is insufficient to prove a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2, and also concluding that employees may raise Paid Sick Leave claims in an appeal by the employer of a Labor Commissioner’s Ruling. CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Attorneys County of Los Angeles v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 29874701: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the defendant law firm seeking a declaratory relief judgment finding there was no valid engagement agreement between defendant law firm and county plaintiffs, even though an engagement agreement had been signed by then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva. The central issue dispute was whether or not then-Sheriff Villanueva had the authority to retain–as opposed to select–independent counsel to represent him in a lawsuit the County of Los Angeles brought against Villanueva. Defendant law firm sought recovery of over $1.7 million in legal fees and costs. The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, finding that Sheriff Alex Villanueva lacked authority to enter into a fee agreement with defendant. It denied defendant’s post-judgment motion to file a cross-complaint as untimely and made in bad faith, and it dismissed defendant’s separate suit for payment as barred by the compulsory cross-complaint statute and the Government Claims Act. The Court of Appeal agreed, concluding that the sheriff had no authority to retain defendant firm, that the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint was properly denied, and that defendant firm’s later lawsuit was correctly dismissed for failure to comply with procedural requirements. (C.A. 2nd, October 23, 2025.) Elder Abuse Frankland v. Etehad (2025) __ Cal.App.5th __, 2025 WL 2267750: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts’ order sustaining defendant doctor’s demurrer to plaintiff’s causes of action alleging neglect and financial abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the Act; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, concluding that an elder cannot state a claim under the Act for “neglect” or “financial abuse” against a physician based solely on that physician’s negligent medical services while the elder resided at a skilled nursing facility. The Act limits “neglect” to “[t]he negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of any elder . . .” (§ 15610.57, subd. (a)(1), italics added), and a physician’s conduct in providing negligent medical services to an elder residing at a skilled nursing facility does not—without more—constitute “neglect” because that physician lacks the requisite “robust caretaking or custodial relationship” with the elder. Moreover, the alleged financial abuse flows inexorably from the alleged professional negligence, such abuse is indistinguishable from that negligence and also falls outside the Act. (C.A. 2nd, August 8, 2025.) Employment Galarsa v. Dolgen California (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 2846580: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and its petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the trial court ruling. The trial court held that an employee could pursue a “headless” PAGA action—one seeking penalties only for Labor Code violations suffered by other employees—and that the question of whether the plaintiff was an “aggrieved employee” need not be arbitrated. The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that under the version of PAGA in effect before the 2024 amendments, employees could bring such representative actions and that the arbitration agreement did not extend to determining PAGA standing, since that dispute belongs to the State’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency, not the individual plaintiff. (C.A. 5th, filed September 9, 2025, published October 8, 2025.) Land Use New Commune DTLA LLC et al. v. City Redondo Beach et al. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 2886322: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of mandate challenging defendant’s housing element adopted under the state Housing Element Law (Housing Element Law; Government Code sections 65580 to 65589.11). The trial court ruled that defendant’s housing element complied with the Housing Element Law despite plaintiffs’ claims that it improperly relied on a zoning “overlay” permitting residential use on commercial and industrial land. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that defendant’s overlay violated Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2) because it failed to impose mandatory minimum residential densities and allowed development without any housing, and that defendant failed to establish that one of the sites identified in the housing element, the Inglewood Avenue site currently occupied by a Vons supermarket, was properly identified as a developable site. (C.A. 2nd, October 10, 2025.)

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

Gen Z lawyers—born between 1997 and 2012—are stepping into the profession with expectations that are rewriting the rules of law firm life. They want flexible schedules, meaningful mental health support, and technology that reduces busywork instead of creating it. They ask direct questions about lawyer work-life balance and often choose smaller firms with strong cultures over BigLaw positions. With the oldest Gen Z lawyers now in their late 20s, this generation comprises nearly 30% of the global population, and their influence on the legal industry is already reshaping traditional practices. For firms, this means culture, technology, and growth opportunities will increasingly determine who wins the talent war in the years ahead. In this post, we’ll explore what matters most to Gen Z lawyers, how they’re redefining career success, and what firms can do to stay competitive. Who Are Gen Z Lawyers? Gen Z attorneys are typically aged 25 to 28 as they enter the legal profession, representing the oldest members of a generation born between 1997 and 2012. As digital natives who grew up with smartphones, social media, and instant access to information, they think, learn, and work differently than previous generations. They expect genuine work-life balance, mental-health support, and modern legal technology that helps them work smarter. And they won’t hesitate to leave firms that don’t offer the right culture, flexibility, or growth opportunities. What Sets Gen Z Lawyers Apart? Understanding what drives Gen Z as lawyers requires looking beyond surface-level preferences to their core values and expectations. Here’s what firms need to understand about this generation. They expect technology to help them work smarter. Legal practice management systems and mobile apps that provide effortless access to case and client information from anywhere are now expectations for these digital natives. They reject endless email chains, don’t understand why paper-based documents still exist, and prefer streamlined communication, seeking legal workflow automation that eliminates manual processes. Purpose matters more than prestige. Traditional markers like BigLaw names and corner offices carry less weight than meaningful work. Deloitte’s latest Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that 89% consider a sense of purpose essential to job satisfaction and well-being. Many will even accept lower pay for work that aligns with their values and offers a stronger sense of long-term career fulfillment. Boundaries aren’t negotiable. These young lawyers set clear limits on their availability because they’ve witnessed the burnout that comes without them. They deliver high-quality work during business hours while protecting personal time so they can recharge and stay effective long-term. They need feedback to grow. Having grown up with instant feedback in every other area of life, they expect the same at work. They want regular check-ins, clear expectations, and immediate recognition for good work. This constant feedback loop accelerates their development and helps firms spot and fix issues early on. More than generational quirks, these are shifts in workplace expectations that affect law firms every day. Firms that embrace these expectations will attract and retain top talent, while those that ignore them risk losing the lawyers who will define the next decade of practice. Gen Z Expectations vs. Traditional Legal Norms The tension between old and new approaches creates daily friction for legal professionals. In many BigLaw firms, you’ll often witness a familiar scene: seasoned partners who believe associates need to “pay their dues” working alongside 26-year-olds who are adamant the system needs to change. It’s a clash between two completely different ways of thinking about legal work. Here’s where the expectations of Gen Z lawyers collide with traditional legal norms: Billable hours vs. quality of output. Gen Z lawyers grew up in a world where technology improves efficiency, so a compensation model that’s based purely on time spent feels backward to them. Meanwhile, many partners who built successful careers under the billable hour model consider it indispensable to law firm profitability. Hierarchy vs. collaboration. Traditional firms operate on strict chains of command where junior associates wait years before their opinions carry weight. Gen Z lawyers, by contrast, are accustomed to flat organizational structures and open communication. When they spot inefficiencies or have innovative ideas, they expect to be heard. Linear careers vs. flexible paths. The traditional model assumes everyone wants to make partner. But Gen Z lawyers often have more fluid career goals. Remarkably, only 6% say their primary career goal is reaching senior leadership. Some plan to go in-house after gaining experience. Others want to start their own practices or take sabbaticals for personal projects. Face time vs. results. Partners who came up in an era where being seen in the office equaled dedication now manage associates who can work effectively from anywhere. Gen Z lawyers judge performance based on output and results, not hours logged at a desk. These differences create natural tension, but they also raise important questions about how the legal profession operates. Firms that thoughtfully examine whether current practices serve everyone well—while preserving what works about traditional practice—will gain an edge in attracting and retaining exceptional talent. Law Firm Challenges In Attracting and Retaining Gen Z Firms face significant challenges in retaining emerging Gen Zs, and these problems stem from fundamental misunderstandings about what young lawyers actually need. With up to 50% of Gen Z workers reportedly disengaged from their jobs, law firms can’t afford to ignore these barriers. Treating Basics Like Perks One of the most significant disconnects occurs when firms continue to treat flexibility and work-life balance as optional perks instead of basic requirements. Gen Z lawyers expect the ability to work from home a few days a week, set their own schedules when possible, and manage personal commitments independently. When firms present these as “extra” benefits, it sends the message that they don’t truly understand how legal work can be done effectively today. Korn Ferry research even shows that 40% of Gen Z associates begin job searching within two years, often citing culture and flexibility concerns. Mentorship That Doesn’t Actually Mentor Gen Z wants real guidance and structured professional development, not just someone who assigns work and disappears. They expect mentors who understand what new lawyers need to succeed and help them get there. The traditional “figure it out yourself” approach leaves them feeling abandoned and undervalued. The numbers reveal this gap clearly. According to Deloitte, 50% of Gen Zs want managers who teach and mentor them, but only 36% say this actually happens. That disconnect between expectation and reality drives many talented young lawyers to look for opportunities elsewhere. Technology That Works Against Them Outdated systems frustrate young lawyers daily in ways that directly impact their ability to do good work. When they have to use three different platforms to complete one task, or when basic processes take hours instead of minutes, they start questioning whether the firm is serious about efficiency. Over time, these tech frustrations can chip away at engagement, productivity, and even loyalty. Career Paths That Assume Everyone Wants The Same Thing The traditional 8-10-year partnership track can feel constraining for lawyers who might want to pivot, take a sabbatical, or explore completely different goals. Gen Z expects firms to offer flexibility and support for diverse career paths, rather than funneling everyone into a one-size-fits-all trajectory. Recommendations: How Law Firms Can Adapt Smart firms are already making changes that reflect the preferences of Gen Z lawyers. By adopting the following six strategies, your firm can create a workplace that attracts, retains, and empowers talent at every level. Make flexibility the default. Gen Z lawyers value the ability to work where and when they can be most productive. Instead of treating remote work or flexible schedules as special privileges, make them standard practice. Focus on results and outcomes rather than hours logged or physical presence. Cloud-based practice management platforms make this possible, letting teams collaborate seamlessly whether they’re in the office, at home, or in court. Build mentorship programs that develop talent. Gen Z wants legal mentors who actively guide them, teach practical skills, and sponsor their growth. Provide mentors with dedicated time and opportunities for meaningful interaction. Beyond mentorship, Gen Z lawyers benefit from structured learning opportunities and ongoing legal education that keeps pace with their career growth. Modernize your tech stack. Outdated systems slow down work and create frustration. Invest in integrated technology that simplifies workflows instead of complicating them. The top legal software consolidates case management, time tracking, billing, and client communication into one centralized place. The result? Less time wrestling with systems and more time practicing law effectively—a win for associates and partners alike. Transform DEI from policy to practice. Gen Z can spot performative diversity a mile away. Inclusive policies alone aren’t enough. They need to be reflected in who’s hired, promoted, and placed in leadership. Show authentic commitment through measurable actions, like diverse leadership pipelines, fair promotion practices, and active accountability. When lawyers see real representation and inclusion in action, it builds trust, engagement, and a stronger sense of belonging. Measure what matters. Billable hours alone don’t capture what makes a lawyer successful. Reward lawyers who improve processes, take smarter approaches, or deliver exceptional results, not just those who work the longest hours. Modern legal technology makes this easy by supporting a wide range of alternative billing arrangements, like flat fees or subscription-based billing options. Give them meaningful work from day one. Young lawyers don’t want to spend years on endless document review or routine research. Instead, offer substantive projects, real client interaction, and genuine responsibility early on. With legal AI increasingly automating routine tasks traditionally assigned to junior staff, firms can now offer more substantive work to new associates from the beginning. Research and Surveys of Gen Z Voices Sometimes, the best way to understand a generation is to hear from them directly. Recent research and surveys reveal telling insights about what Gen Z lawyers want and what’s driving them away from traditional firms. 52% of Gen Z associates are willing to trade part of their salary for reduced billable hours, with women showing stronger preferences for this trade-off. 39% of Gen Z associates disagree or strongly disagree that associates at their firm were racially diverse. More than one in four junior associates disagreed or strongly disagreed that their firms prioritize pro bono work (27%) or value social justice and responsibility (27%). 68% of young lawyers experience stress and anxiety due to student loan debt, with 67% feeling financial stress overall. 74% of Gen Z believe generative AI will impact the way they work within the next year. 6% of Gen Zs say their primary career goal is to reach a senior leadership position. Of the 70% of Gen Z who said they would pursue employment at a law firm, just 39% said they would like to work for an Am Law 200 firm. As much as 50% of Gen Z workers are reportedly disengaged from their jobs. The Final Word On Gen Z Lawyers Gen Z lawyers are embracing legal tech to work smarter, championing flexible and forward-thinking business models, and reimagining the way they connect with colleagues and clients. As they move into leadership roles over the coming decade, their values will reshape everything from firm culture to client service delivery models. The firms that thrive will be those that embrace integrated practice management technology and provide the modern legal tools that help lawyers work more effectively. More importantly, they’ll recognize that Gen Z’s approach isn’t simply different. It can also be better, creating more sustainable, efficient, and fulfilling legal careers for everyone. 

In a post two years ago this month Here We Go All Over Again… or Not, I posed a series of questions about what might happen to the legal world in this era of Generative AI. While the takeover of the industry by computers that some feared did not move at warp speed, the direction of AI advance as it relates to the law is clear—it will increasingly play a role in the business and practice of law and, likely within a relatively short time, change dramatically the day-to-day activities of lawyers. With those changes will come fundamental shifts in what it will means be—and to become—a successful lawyer. Another corollary of this change will likely be a change in the primary criterion for a successful firm—aggregation and maintenance of the right talent base for the future. Put differently, the successful (and potentially the only surviving) law firms will be those who can play and win the talent game. Talent, not AI or other factors, will be the primary differentiator for firms of the future. Sophisticated AI as part of the practice of law will be available to all and will become a component of “table stakes” within a few years. As a necessity, AI adoption becomes primarily a capital question, as well as a question of firm structure and funding, including acceleration of the industry entrée of external (PE, VC, etc.) capital. But the fundamental question remains—what will differentiate firms when core tools of the legal practice are available to everyone? Talent will be the answer, making the focus on all aspects of talent management critical to future success. Over the past few years, when we’ve asked Managing Partners about their most important challenges, the common topics have included “the associates” and a general concern around the eroding productivity of their lawyer teams generally. The productivity issues stem from many causes, and we’ve written about them in various other recent blogs, but even successfully addressing those concerns does not ultimately guarantee your firm the talent it needs to succeed in the future. While overcoming the cultural and other factors underlying these challenges will be a necessary factor in success, it won’t be a sufficient one. What else will firms need to do on the talent front? First and foremost, firms individually, and perhaps the industry broadly, will need to deeply rethink both what it will mean to be a future successful partner, and perhaps more importantly, how to develop one. The most successful partners today are those to whom the clients will turn in their most challenging times. The trusted advisors, and the true strategic partners when it comes to dealing with important challenges—whether in the courtroom or the deal room—will be crucial. But as AI increasingly supplants much of the work currently done by younger lawyers, and moves into assisting in strategic decision making and other components of the practice, how will firms create the next generation of truly valuable partners? Yes, we will likely need fewer younger lawyers to do relatively routine work (and fewer older lawyers who do routine work too), but we will still need a large—and likely larger than today—number of highly skilled and trusted lawyers upon whom the clients confer their trust. A different development model will be needed to assure this supply, which may require two additional changes: a rethinking of the typical legal pricing model, and a new level of cooperation with the clients. That development model itself will have a different structure. Just as today the share of total partners who are truly the trusted and strategic partners of the client are a small-ish subset of the total partners in most firms, likewise the share of total new hires the firm can invest enough in to eventually get them to that level will be smaller than the total group of new lawyer hires every year. But proper selection, and long-term retention of those new hires will be crucial. Second, the overall leverage structure of many firms will need to change. In the short run, and reflecting the point in the paragraph above, firms might consider building two entirely different groups of associates—one group ready and able to become the next true group of strategic owners, willing to put in the hours it takes to build a truly successful career and another group who may not have the talent or desire to be those future leaders but who can contribute to the firm’s current success while handling the remaining routine work and much of the more basic work that is still needed in the firm. In a sense, the latter group becomes a type of “super paralegal” or new paraprofessional group with its own career path, while the first becomes a smaller, but more intense associate class. The second group might resemble an enhanced “staff attorney” program but provide a separate lifetime job category with its own benefits and rewards. The first group will need a different compensation model from today to protect the firm from undesired losses and will become an area for intense investment by the firms. As a corollary to the restructuring of associate life, firms will need to think carefully about what they are looking for in the new lawyers in whom they plan to make significant investments. Most firms have come to the realization that brainpower alone—whether reflected in LSAT scores, law school rankings or your place within your graduating class—is insufficient to assure career success. It takes more than drive, empathy, social skills, and other key traits to rise to the top and gain the trust of clients. These associates will also need a strong business sense, and perhaps psychological traits more readily found in the business world than the legal world. Most firms have yet to discover how to systematically identify and attract such candidates, and when they do get them fortuitously, are often hard pressed to keep them. Third, firms will need to find ways to better capture the value of the senior talent where a significant portion of current law firm knowledge resides, while also doing a far better job of managing transition as lawyers approach retirement. Much of this challenge relates to compensation models and legacy overhead structures. It just doesn’t work in today’s law firm economic structures to have many senior people (intentionally) working part time, even though their potential contribution is significant. More than a few firms face capacity shortages for highly skilled work, while simultaneously struggling to train and develop the next generations. While many senior lawyers struggle, understandably, with the transition to retirement, better transition management programs, different overhead structures, and more flexible compensation design might help firms and lawyers manage much more fruitful and productive transitions. Finally, in addition to better managing the early and later parts of a lawyer’s career, firms will need to focus more intently on its middle. Retaining the key, well trained mid-career star lawyers who manage the bulk of the firm’s work (and do most of the hands-on training of younger talent) is critical to assuring the quality and success of the firm one and two decades from now. While individual firms obviously have radically different experiences, the median partner retention rate in the AM Law 100 firms was roughly 90% for the period 2020-2023[1]. Even at this reasonably strong retention rate, a firm loses roughly half its partners every six years, and many firms have far worse retention rates. Given this challenge, most lateral hiring strategies do little to build a law firm—most are working as hard as they can to stay in the same place, with new hires replacing departures and retirements. To build a stronger, deeper firm, you must both hire and retain people for the long term. Each firm’s talent base is unique, but not all are created equal. To the extent a firm’s talent is primarily just capable of efficient processing of relatively routine legal work it may find itself a few years from now the victim of a rapidly accelerating AI driven revolution in the industry. Such firms will likely be either much less profitable or potentially cease to exist. But to the extent the firm has a talent base capable of gaining and keeping client’s trust for their business or for key aspects of important work, those firms will remain relevant to the clients, and profitable to their owners. Talent is the one component of the successful firm that can’t be easily duplicated simply by spending money. You must build the right culture, select the right people, build the right structures around them, pay them appropriately, create opportunities for growth, and build reasons for them to stay with the firm long term. It’s not easy, and the outcomes will fall along a spectrum of success. But the firms who figure out how to win the talent game will ultimately be the winners of the future. Which brings us full circle. The next time your firm sets out to do its “strategic plan”, think carefully about what you are really doing. A strategy that doesn’t include a serious, long term talent focus—not just a “plan” to “grow out office in X city through lateral hiring”—is not a strategy that can meet the future our industry faces. Talent is the final strategic frontier, and those that wade boldly into its challenges will have the best shots at being winners of the future. [1] “Which AM Law 100 firms have been retaining their lateral Partner hires?”, Pirical, February 12, 2024, pirical.com/data-insights/amlaw100-partner-retention 

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Employment CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1874891: The Court of Appeal denied the employer defendant’s petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in plaintiff’s PAGA action alleging no individual claims, but only claims on behalf of other employees. The issue was whether Labor Code section 2699 authorizes an aggrieved employee to bring a lawsuit that seeks to recover civil penalties imposed for Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees. After plaintiff dismissed his individual claims, because they had been ordered to arbitration, defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing that plaintiff could not bring PAGA claims for violations suffered only by other employees. The Court of Appel denied the writ petition, concluding that a plaintiff may bring a PAGA action seeking the recovery of civil penalties (1) for the Labor Code violations suffered only by the employee, (2) for the Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees, or (3) both. (C.A. 5th, July 7, 2025.) Landlord-Tenant Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1764252: The Court of Appeal transferred this case from the appellate division of the superior court to decide whether a tenant can appeal a judgment for possession in an unlawful detainer proceeding if the landlord has outstanding damages claims that have not been adjudicated. It concluded that a possession-only judgment is not appealable in this situation because it does not resolve all rights of the parties. However, given the uncertainty of the law on appealability at the time defendant filed his appeal, the Court of Appeal treated the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate to avoid any further delay. It concluded that the three-day notice to pay rent or quit served by plaintiff landlord, pursuant to section 1161(2) was invalid for failure to make clear by when and how defendant tenant had to pay the rent, and that defendant would lose possession of the premises if he did not timely cure the default. Plaintiff’s complaint incorporating the three-day notice therefore failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate the judgment in favor of plaintiff and to enter a new judgment in favor of defendant. (C.A. 2nd, June 26, 2025.) Real Property Amundson et al. v. Catello (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1563241: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s interlocutory order identifying the owners of real property as cross-defendant Ruth Catello (Catello) and the estate of decedent Leslie J. Knoles (decedent) and ordering a partition by sale. Decedent had four surviving siblings. Catello and decedent originally acquired title to the real property as joint tenants. About one month before her death, decedent recorded a quitclaim deed that, if valid, severed the joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common with no right of survivorship. Catello and the siblings filed dueling petitions in the probate court. Those proceedings were not yet concluded when the Court of Appeal issued its decision. This appeal arose after Catello filed an action against two of the siblings to cancel the quitclaim deed and for quiet title to the real property, the siblings later filed a cross-claim seeking to partition the real property by sale, and the trial court entered its interlocutory judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed the interlocutory judgment because the siblings did not have standing to bring the partition action. Code of Civil Procedure section 872.210(a)(2) provides that a partition action may be commenced and maintained by an owner of an estate of inheritance in real property. The probate proceedings, however, had not yet determined whether the real property was a part of decedent’s estate. Because the party seeking partition must have clear title, the uncertainty of the outcome of the probate proceedings precluded the siblings from establishing the ownership interest required to bring a partition claim under section 872.210. (C.A. 4th, Decision after rehearing, June 3, 2025.) Torts Mitchell v. Hutchinson (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1904317: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendants Gail B. Hutchinson and the Gail B. Hutchinson Trust’s (defendants) motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs’ action for personal injury and property damage arising from rocks or boulders rolling down a hill and onto the road. Plaintiff sued several defendants who owned adjacent real property. The trial court properly granted summary judgment. Defendants met their initial burden pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c subdivision (p)(2) of showing that plaintiffs could not prove the element of causation as to both of their causes of action. The burden then shifted to plaintiffs to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to (1) whether the rocks came from defendants’ property or, alternatively, (2) whether defendants and the other owners of the adjacent hillside acted negligently in maintaining their slopes such that the burden of proof on the issue of causation would shift to defendants at trial under Summers v. Tice (1948) 33 Cal.2d 80. Because plaintiffs did neither, defendants were entitled to summary judgment. (C.A. 4th, filed June 11, 2025, published July 10, 2025.) n

If you’re a judge reading this, take a breath. The goal here isn’t to paint you as the problem. Quite the opposite. The best judges—the ones who believe in the rule of law, who sweat the details and carry the weight of their decisions—are the very reason this question deserves serious thought. Could a well-trained AI, with full access to case law, statutes, and party filings, deliver more consistent, more affordable, and more impartial trial-level decisions? Could it even outperform us? Let’s test the idea—not out of disrespect for the bench, but out of respect for justice itself. A System Rooted in Humanity—For Better and Worse Our trial courts were built around human judgment. That made sense when typewriters ruled and precedent lived in books. But in a world of real-time language models and digital archives of every decision ever issued, we must ask: is tradition alone a good enough reason to keep relying on one person’s memory, mood, and mindset to decide the most important matters in people’s lives? And more provocatively: how much longer can we pretend that “human discretion” is inherently better than structured logic? The Case for AI in the Trial Courts It’s cheaper. Much cheaper. Judges are well-paid—and they should be, given the gravity of their role. But with salaries north of $150,000 annually (not including staff, clerks, or pension obligations), trial courts are expensive to operate. An AI model capable of evaluating briefs, applying precedent, and issuing draft opinions could cost as little as $15–$50 per month. That’s not an argument to devalue human labor—it’s a fiscal reality that deserves attention in an era of strained public budgets. AI has infinite recall. When asked to synthesize multiple cases and statutory provisions, a judge may lean on memory, experience, or a clerk’s memo. An AI, however, doesn’t forget. Give it full access to the Westlaw archive, or just upload the controlling authorities—and it can trace doctrinal threads with surgical precision. It’s not that AI is smarter than a judge. It’s that it doesn’t tire, doesn’t forget, and doesn’t rely on gut instinct. No more bias. No more guesswork. Even the most conscientious judges can’t fully escape implicit bias. Whether it’s fatigue, frustration, or unconscious favoritism, human decisions are colored by context. In some trial courts—particularly family law—discretion is so vast that outcomes can shift dramatically depending on who’s presiding. As any lawyer for child custody appeals knows, the abuse of discretion standard makes reversals exceedingly rare. That discretion, for better or worse, can hide all manner of biases behind legally sufficient reasoning—meaning uttering the right magic words on the record before stating the ruling. AI doesn’t play favorites. It doesn’t get annoyed at an attorney’s tone. It doesn’t rush a decision because the docket is heavy or lunch is late. It just applies law to fact. No clerks, no court reporters, no translators. Real-time AI transcription is already approaching—if not surpassing—human court reporter accuracy. Add in multi-language translation capabilities, and you remove barriers for non-English speakers while capturing an immediate, searchable record. That’s not science fiction. That’s off-the-shelf capability today. If you’re an appellate lawyer, imagine not having to explain to your client why they need to pay $4,000 or more for a transcript, on top of your legal fees. Instead, within one minute of the court proceeding ending, an automated email delivers a near-perfect transcript for free. It doesn’t matter how long the hearing lasted, how many objections were raised, or how many different languages were spoken—the transcript is in your inbox before you even leave the courtroom, and it didn’t cost a dime. It’s not about replacing judges. It’s about improving justice. Some will read this and assume it’s an attack. That’s not the point. The point is that our justice system owes its stakeholders—litigants, taxpayers, and even judges themselves—an honest look at whether technology can help us deliver fairer, faster, and more consistent decisions. And in many contexts, AI can. Addressing the Objections “But judges bring empathy.” Empathy, when misapplied, becomes bias. Justice isn’t supposed to turn on how sympathetic a party appears. The law should drive outcomes, not emotion—particularly in systems built on predictability and equal treatment. “But what if the AI makes a mistake?” So do humans. The difference is: AI can be audited. Every line of reasoning, every logic path, every weighted factor—visible. Line by line. Judges, by contrast, are black boxes. We can’t scan their thoughts or feelings, or decode what really swayed them in chambers. Maybe someday we’ll be able to render human emotion and bias into something measurable. But until then, only one system gives us source code we can read—and fix. “But what about oral argument?” Let lawyers still present live or recorded arguments. AI can evaluate not just the words, but tone and demeanor—perhaps more objectively than a fatigued bench at 4:45 p.m. A Modest Proposal: Let’s Pilot It Start small. A hybrid system in a civil docket. Judges review and override AI recommendations only if necessary. Track results. Measure appeal rates. Benchmark timelines. See whether litigants find the outcomes fairer, faster, and more consistent. Justice demands humility—and the courage to improve even what we think works. Final Word: Know Thy Judge? Or Know the Law? Today, experienced attorneys know which counties lean conservative, which judges dislike certain arguments, and how to “read the room” rather than just cite the rule. That’s a problem. You shouldn’t have to know your judge. You should only have to know the law. AI might not be perfect. But it doesn’t need to be perfect to be better. It just has to be consistent, transparent, and free of personal agenda. That alone would be a revolution.

Contentious divorces often involve years-long battles over child custody, asset division, and spousal support. False claims of infidelity, domestic violence, child abuse, or financial misconduct are unfortunately common in high-conflict family law cases. One party may attempt to control the narrative by defaming their former spouse on social media. They may create fake profiles, connect with their ex’s contacts, and post lies designed to inflict maximum reputational harm. For these situations, family law attorneys should consult defamation counsel to evaluate any potential claims, remove unwanted online content, unmask anonymous online actors, and mount an aggressive defense. Benefits of Working with a Defamation Attorney on Family Law Matters Determining the necessity of a defamation lawsuit Are the false statements made by an ex-spouse or in-laws actionable? Could a properly worded demand letter stop the defamation and harassment and return your client’s leverage? Defamation counsel can roadmap a potential lawsuit—separate from the family matter—including the likelihood of success and claim valuation. Family law clients must consider that a new defamation lawsuit may increase hostilities between the parties—is it worth it? Would a defamation lawsuit serve the client’s overarching family law matter or make matters more acrimonious? Preventing client liability Amidst emotional turmoil, family law clients may be tempted to retaliate by making their own accusations online. Defamation counsel can educate clients on defamation laws and help them avoid liability while still defending themselves. Enforcing non-disparagement agreements Non-disparagement agreements may be essential components of a resolution plan for family law matters. Defamation counsel can provide proper language for those agreements to ensure they are enforceable, clear, and can be used to navigate alleged breaches of those agreements. Crafting effective demand letters Attorneys without defamation legal experience can draft a demand letter involving complained-of speech—but it’s unlikely to be an effective one. A mediocre demand letter does nothing more than inform your adversary that you hired counsel—a waste. A defamation attorney can help you to create a proper demand letter that explains why the offending speech is defamatory (i.e., specifically, why is it unlawful rather than merely disparaging). Is a defense or privilege implicated by their offending speech? Address it in the demand letter explaining why it is inapplicable. Pre-emptively defanging their defense will leave them with nothing other than the fear of an adverse verdict. Your defamation attorney will follow up the letter with a call to discuss what you truly want and to explore paths there. How Family Law Attorneys Can Work with a Defamation Lawyer Consult early Address defamation concerns at the outset of a case to prevent long-term damage. Defamation claims must usually be brought within one-to-three years from publication (depending on the state). Monitor online activity Monitor social media and public statements that could harm a client’s reputation. Take immediate legal action Issue demand letters, request content removals, and file lawsuits when necessary. Include reputation protection in settlements Non-disparagement agreements requiring prompt arbitration for breaches with attorney fees flowing to the prevailing party. These should be non-negotiable terms. Defamation attorneys should not charge for those consultations or case work-ups (we don’t). False accusations and online defamation can derail a family law case, affecting everything from custody arrangements to personal and professional reputations. By consulting with a defamation attorney, family law attorneys can provide a more comprehensive legal strategy for their clients.