Practice Management

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.