Practice Management

The legal profession is standing at the edge of a radical transformation. Technology, shifting client expectations, new business models, and the accelerating pace of change are exposing a critical question: Will your law firm exist in five years? At Best Era, LLC, we consult with clients around the world and begin by asking them where they want to be in five years. If you aren’t thinking about five years from now, you should pause, and spend some time doing so. This isn’t just a rhetorical question. It’s one that demands sober, strategic reflection. The truth is that many firms won’t survive, not because they weren’t competent or profitable, but because they failed to adapt. If you’re leading a law firm, here are seven key questions that will determine whether you’ll still be in business half a decade from now. 1. Why Does Your Firm Exist? If you can’t answer this question clearly and persuasively, you’re already in trouble. Too many firms define their existence by inertia: We’ve always been here. Or circumstance: We signed a 10-year lease. Or comfort: We’re still making money. These are not reasons—they’re symptoms of complacency. A firm that wants to thrive must have: Well-defined values that serve as a compass in turbulent times. A clearly defined niche, because “we do everything” no longer works in a world of specialization and rapid information access. A value proposition that evolves, rooted in solving real problems in unique ways. If you don’t know why your firm exists beyond paying salaries and overhead, your future is up for grabs. The firms that will survive are mission-driven, nimble, and clear on their why. 2. Why Would Anyone Work for You? If your answer is “money,” you’re in serious danger. The legal workforce is shifting. Lawyers, especially younger ones, are increasingly driven by meaning, impact, lifestyle, and growth. Yes, they want to be paid fairly—but they also want: Purpose-driven work. Opportunities to innovate and lead. Work-life integration, not just work-life balance. Transparency and autonomy. In the age of remote work, digital tools, and widespread entrepreneurship, it’s never been easier for a talented lawyer to go solo. If your culture is built solely around compensation, you’ll find yourself in a constant cycle of turnover and talent drain. Firms that win in the next five years will create environments people want to be part of—because of how it feels, what it stands for, and what it enables. 3. Are You Hiring for the Skillsets of the Future? The skills that made a great lawyer in 2010 are not the same ones that will define success in 2030. Traditional legal education emphasized: Deep legal research. Meticulous writing. Adversarial thinking. Those skills still matter, but they’re no longer sufficient. Today, forward-thinking firms are hiring for: Project management expertise— because legal matters increasingly resemble complex operations. AI fluency— understanding how to prompt, audit, and collaborate with artificial intelligence tools. Client experience design— because value is judged not just by outcomes, but by process and communication. If your hiring is rooted in resumes and class ranks alone, you’re missing the moment. Firms of the future need people who can build, adapt, and lead in uncertainty. 4. How Strong Are Your Community Relationships? Law is a trust-based profession. And trust is built through proximity, consistency, and value. Firms that operate in a vacuum, rarely engaging with their community, industry, or niche—are out of touch and at risk. Ask yourself: Are we showing up where our clients and peers are? Are we listening to what they care about? Are we giving back in meaningful ways? Whether it’s through thought leadership, nonprofit partnerships, pro bono efforts, or local presence, community is your moat. Weak relationships mean weak referrals, poor retention, and diminished brand strength. 5. Is Your Business Model Built for a Post-Billable-Hour World? The “death of the billable hour” has been written about for decades. But today, it’s finally on life support. Why? Because AI, automation, and process optimization are collapsing the time it takes to deliver legal work. Tasks that used to take three days now take 30 minutes. If you’re billing by the hour, you’re incentivized to be slower, not smarter. Clients are noticing. The future belongs to firms that: Offer value-based pricing. Bundle services with subscriptions or flat fees. Use data and transparency to build trust, not mystery. If your margins depend on dragging out routine work, your model is in jeopardy. Start rethinking value, not as time spent, but as problems solved. 6. Are You Ready for a Leveled Playing Field? The tools of BigLaw are no longer exclusive. A solo practitioner armed with Westlaw AI, a decent case management system, and a smart strategy can now: Draft contracts at scale. File complex litigation. Deliver 24/7 client updates. This is a tectonic shift. Technology is democratizing legal services. You don’t need a floor of associates and paralegals to compete anymore—you need leverage and precision. This means: Rethinking your firm’s cost structure. Redesigning workflows for maximum automation. Competing on strategy and insight, not brute force. Legacy is no longer a moat. Agility is. 7. Can You Justify Working at Your Firm? Let’s say you’re a talented associate or even a partner. You’re watching AI eat time, remote work untethering geography, and legal entrepreneurs thriving with minimal overhead. Why stay? That’s the question your current and future lawyers are asking. If you want to retain and attract top talent, you’ll need answers like: “Because we offer growth and mentorship you can’t get elsewhere.” “Because our platform helps you scale your impact.” “Because we make it easy to do your best work without burning out.” Gone are the days when security and tradition were enough. Today’s legal professionals want alignment, innovation, and freedom. And if they don’t get it from you, they’ll go build it themselves. Conclusion: Five Years Is Closer Than You Think This isn’t alarmism—it’s realism. Law firms that thrive in the next five years will not be the biggest or the most prestigious. They will be: Mission-aligned. Tech-enabled. Client-centered. Talent-smart. If you’re not actively evolving in those directions, the clock is ticking. Start with the hard questions. Build from first principles. And above all, don’t assume you’re safe just because you’re profitable today. The winds have shifted. Make sure your sails are set.

Employers are often faced with complaints of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and other kinds of misconduct. While no two investigations are identical, specific strategies exist to help conduct effective workplace investigations, which in turn helps build trust within the organization, lends a listening ear to aggrieved and accused employees and protects the organization from liability. This alert highlights strategies for ensuring that your workplace investigations promote organizational integrity, establish fair treatment, and foster a positive work environment. Identify the Scope Defining the scope of a workplace investigation is fundamental to its success and efficiency. A well-defined scope acts as a roadmap, preventing investigators from pursuing irrelevant leads while ensuring all pertinent issues are thoroughly examined. Without clear boundaries, investigations risk becoming unfocused fishing expeditions that waste resources, delay resolution, and potentially create additional liability. Investigators must identify the specific allegations and the relevant time period(s), parties involved, and evidence. They should also establish which policies are at issue and may have been violated. This framework helps maintain objectivity and ensures investigations remain focused on substantiating or disproving specific claims rather than expanding into tangential matters. Create Your Investigation Plan The moment a complaint is reported, the clock starts ticking. It is imperative to promptly investigate and to not unreasonably delay an investigation or to appear unresponsive to the allegations made. A timely investigation is critical to resolving and addressing any issues and to asserting possible defenses should the matter lead to litigation. While an effective investigation isn’t necessarily completed overnight, companies should consider timelines of one week, two weeks, or sometimes a month depending on the nature of the claims, the number of documents to review, and the number of interviewees involved. The investigator should come into each witness interview armed with an outline of questions to help guide the discussion. While the outline need not be followed rigidly, the outline can help the investigator stay organized, ensure key topics are covered, and help maintain a structured flow, ultimately leading to a more focused and successful interview. Additionally, the investigator should consider what the relevant documents are and ensure that all documents pertinent to the claims have been reviewed. For instance, does the investigator have access to relevant emails, text messages, complaints to human resources, disciplinary documents, and personnel files? Though it is not uncommon for new documents to be discovered during an interview, the investigator should enter the interview with a grasp of what the file entails. Last, when establishing a plan, choose a location where the interviewee will feel comfortable speaking frankly and truthfully. The environment of the interview can play a significant role in shaping the outcome of the interview. If the interviewee feels embarrassed, threatened, or spotlighted, the interviewee may not speak with full candor. To the extent possible, interviews should take place in a private room free from distractions or visibility to the interviewee’s colleagues. Off-site conference rooms or even remote interviews during which the interviewee is at home are encouraged. In some cases, it may be necessary to choose different locations for the various interviewees depending on the circumstances. In other words, a high-level manager with a secluded office may be interviewed in a different setting than an intern assigned to a cubicle alongside other colleagues. The investigator should also consider whether the individuals being interviewed are hourly employees who need to be compensated for the time spent participating in the investigation. Decide Whether Immediate Action is Necessary Businesses may be confronted with the issue of whether it is necessary to take immediate action after a complaint is reported. Depending on the nature of the complaint, taking immediate steps to protect the complainant may be critical. This may take the form of paid temporary leave, schedule adjustments, or physically separating the workspaces of the complainant and accused to prevent any further misconduct. Employers must be aware, however, that such decisions should not go so far as to burden or inconvenience the complainant and their ability to perform their job duties during the investigation. For example, placing the complainant on an unpaid suspension or transferring their work location without their consent can be perceived as retaliatory and is not recommended. Similarly, an employer must consider whether to remove the accused from the workplace pending investigation, temporarily reassign the accused to an alternative work assignment, and/or whether to compensate the accused if they are suspended pending investigation. Each investigation is unique and may warrant different circumstances during the pendency of an investigation. Communicate the “No Retaliation” Rule One of the most pressing considerations is ensuring that a workplace investigation does not result in retaliation. Every interviewee should be told at the outset that retaliation will not be tolerated against those who complain or those who participate in investigations. It must be made clear that acts of retaliation will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Workplace investigations can place employees on the defensive, because they often feel like they are being accused of wrongdoing, even if they are not. This can lead to a sense of personal attack, fear of repercussions, and a desire to protect themselves by minimizing their involvement. Thus, communicating a “no retaliation” rule is critical in protecting the company and encouraging participation in the process. Employees should be instructed not to retaliate against anyone and should similarly be put on notice to report any retaliation they may face as a result of their own participation. Additionally, the investigator must explain that information provided during the interview may be shared with others only if absolutely necessary. Interviewees should understand that complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed and may be virtually impossible to maintain in the event that a lawsuit arises. Should litigation be pursued, the interviewee should know that relevant parties will require copies of all statements and case-related documents. At the same time, the investigator can reassure the subject that they intend to uphold confidentiality as much as possible and that they plan to gather all available facts before reaching any conclusions. Choosing the Right Investigator One of the most avoidable hiccups is choosing the wrong investigator. The choice of investigator directly impacts the investigation’s credibility, effectiveness, and legal defensibility. Employers should pay heed to choosing an investigator with awareness and sensitivity. Differences in background, understanding, and experiences might affect communication styles, power dynamics, and interpretation of events. Remain Impartial Impartiality is key. The investigator should focus on maintaining a neutral and impartial tone throughout the course of the interview so as to not discredit impartiality or cause the interviewee to question their motives. While it may be tempting to gain the interviewee’s trust by acting like you are on their side, any flaws in the process can be used to challenge the credibility of the investigation’s findings, leading to potential legal liability for the employer. Reaching a Determination and Communicating to All Parties After conducting the initial interviews and any necessary follow-up interviews, there should be a formal conclusion to the investigation memorialized in writing. The final written report should reach an ultimate conclusion as to the facts and whether policies were violated, but should not opine on issues of law or use legal terms. The report should also highlight a section that provides a clear statement of the findings of the investigation on each key issue, including any issues that were not resolved. The final report should also include a list of the parties involved, employer policies or guidelines relevant to the investigation, and the parties responsible for making the final determination. The report should assess the credibility of witnesses. Did the interviewee display a clear sense of personal interest in the results of the investigation? Is the interviewee’s job on the line and would they have any reason to be untruthful? Does the interviewee have an obvious animus towards the complainant or accused? The investigator should be assessing the interviewee’s subjective credibility in ensuring whether their answers are truthful and accurate. The investigator may be tasked with issuing a recommendation on the employment decision, at which point a member of the business, in consultation with legal counsel, will assess, finalize, or reject that recommendation. If tasked with issuing the business a recommendation, the investigator should clearly identify the basis for their recommendation in an impartial manner, using the facts and information obtained during the course of the investigation. Last, effective communication is paramount when closing an investigation. An organization may want to consider the following approaches: providing appropriate notifications to involved parties while maintaining confidentiality, communicating outcomes to relevant stakeholders without disclosing sensitive details, ensuring transparency about the process and commitment to organizational standards, and offering support resources for employees affected by the investigation. Closing the Investigation Closing a workplace investigation is a delicate and crucial process that requires careful attention to detail, legal compliance, and organizational integrity. The manner in which an investigation is concluded can significantly impact employee trust, organizational culture, and potential future legal implications. Based on the investigation’s findings, the organization will want to develop a clear and actionable plan for resolution. This may include: Disciplinary actions for substantiated misconduct; Targeted training or educational interventions; Policy revisions or organizational practice improvements; Mediation or conflict resolution strategies for interpersonal issues. An investigation’s closure is not the end of the process, but a new beginning. Organizations should work to implement a follow-up plan to monitor the effectiveness of corrective actions, conduct periodic check-ins with the involved parties, track any recommended organizational changes, and assess the long-term impact of the investigation’s outcomes. By approaching the closure of a workplace investigation with thoroughness, empathy, and strategic insight, organizations can transform a potentially challenging situation into an opportunity for positive change and continuous improvement.

Let’s get it out of the way: Referrals still reign supreme when it comes to getting new clients. In the 2025 edition of Greentarget and Zeughauser Group’s survey of decision-makers, “recommendations from sources you trust” is the No. 1 method clients use to find new outside counsel, cited by 92 percent of in-house counsel and 86 percent of C-suite executives. While referrals remain the dominant go-to method for your potential clients, they are also frustratingly finite: Your potential referrals are limited by your personal network. While the Pew Research Center estimates that most of us have about 634 ties in our overall networks, the number of relationships we can maintain for mutual benefit (i.e., I do your legal work, and you refer me to a friend) is 150. So how can you attract clients outside your 150 ties? Let’s look at the other tactics your prospects turn to: Publications and Presentations Writing and speaking take second place with both in-house counsel and C-suite leaders, used by 78 percent and 74 percent, respectively. And for good reason: both provide the equivalent of free samples of your perspective and your approach—exactly why they would hire you. The influence of your writing and speaking is amplified when it is delivered through a publication, organization or event they highly trust. Professional Biography If your law firm website was a store, the biography is your product description, showing potential clients your experience, background and—ideally—the benefits they can expect by hiring you. Bios are reviewed by 67 percent of in-house counsel and 74 percent of business leaders. Related, your LinkedIn profile matters, too: It’s consulted by 62 percent of in-house lawyers and 74 percent of the C-suite. Content While they lack the third-party endorsement of a major publication or trade organization newsletter, blog posts on topics that are relevant to their particular industry or issue are used by a majority of potential clients in the scouting process—62 percent of in-house counsel and 57 percent of executives. Peer-Driven Rankings and Directories Love them or hate them, accolades like Chambers, Benchmark, IP STARS and others still carry weight with more than half of your prospective clients—56 percent of in-house lawyers and 62 percent of executives. Quotes in Relevant Media Outlets Being quoted as an expert source helps with fewer than half (42 percent) of in-house lawyers, but earned media remains a popular way to reach business leaders, with 51 percent considering quotes in their attorney searches. What’s not on the list? Posts on X (formerly Twitter) took a precipitous drop in this edition of the survey, going from use by 48 percent of the C-suite to just 36 percent, and from 21 percent of in-house lawyers to just 13 percent. Meanwhile, law firms should not be overly concerned with their Wikipedia pages, referred to by 24 percent of C-level executives and 13 percent of in-house lawyers. What does this mean for you? To reach potential clients outside your immediate network—and to bolster your standings among referrals who look you up—consider four activities: Pursue writing and speaking opportunities with outlets that are relevant to your target clients. Think beyond bar events; what conferences or conventions do your prospects attend? Where do they speak or sponsor? What do they read? Some light LinkedIn stalking can be very informative. Want to be a true authority in your priority industries or markets? Consider conducting a survey to position yourself as an authority with exclusive insights. Update your firm biography. This website page may be the most powerful document in your marketing arsenal, capturing the attention of two out of three in-house counsel. Make it current and compelling, and make sure it provides evidence of your capabilities, not just claims. Show your expertise through content. Publishing insights and analysis on your firm’s website gives you an owned media channel that can impress potential clients and draw additional traffic, expanding your network even more. Make it useful, current and concise. Take a purposeful approach to awards and rankings. The Greentarget/Zeughauser report refers to these as “icing on the cake” for your prospects; they may not get you the work on their own, but they can serve as a third-party seal of approval in the consideration process. Survey your competition: Where are they ranked? Where can you unseat them? Are there any industry awards—e.g., the ‘Widget Industry Lawyer of the Year’—that could mean more to your clients than another lawyer-to-lawyer prize? Choose one award you can either add or upgrade, and play to win. In 2025, nearly half of attorneys and law firm marketers said that business development will be harder than in 2024, according to BTI Consulting—and that was before increased chatter about a possible recession. In this kind of environment, it’s dangerous to rely on passive referrals alone; improve your business development probabilities with marketing communications tactics that are shown to get the attention of the prospects who matter most.

A Familiar Story of Communication Chaos You’ve likely lived this scenario. It’s Monday morning. You have a deposition at 10, a court call at 2, and a mountain of emails to sift through. Your paralegal pokes her head in: “Hey, did anyone ever follow up on that new lead from Thursday?” You haven’t heard a thing. You join a hastily scheduled Zoom meeting where no one seems prepared. The marketing head talks about leads. Finance interjects with cashflow concerns. Operations need clarity on hiring. Forty-five minutes go by. You hang up frustrated, knowing nothing really got done. Afterward, a partner swings by: “Hey, what did we decide about intake scripts?” You sigh. “I don’t think we actually decided anything.” Welcome to the paradox of modern law firm life: we have too many meetings and not enough communication. How is that possible? Because what most firms suffer from isn’t over-communication, it’s misaligned communication. The Cost of Misalignment According to a study by McKinsey, employees spend nearly 61% of their workweek on “work about work”—status updates, internal communication, and meetings—not actual productive tasks. Harvard Business Review reports that senior executives spend nearly 23 hours a week in meetings, and 71% of them say meetings are unproductive and inefficient. The legal profession isn’t immune. In fact, we might be one of the worst offenders. Lawyers are busy. Everyone is in trial prep, answering client emails, or billing time. So, we add more meetings to fix the problem—weekly check-ins, project updates, all-hands. But instead of solving issues, we drown in overlapping conversations, vague follow-ups, and inconsistent decision-making. At the same time, critical information isn’t shared across departments. Marketing launches a new campaign, but intake doesn’t know how to qualify the leads. A new associate is hired, but no one trained them on file naming protocols. Sound familiar? What this creates is not just inefficiency—it’s exhaustion. Communication Without a System Is Just Noise I’ve lived this chaos. At my firm, we grew from a napkin-and-Panera vision to a $100 million verdict and a thirty-person team. But in the early years, it was messy. We were reactive, putting out fires, and throwing more meetings at the problem. We were trying to scale without a map. Eventually, we discovered that the issue wasn’t just our communication—it was our lack of a system for it. That’s why we built The Way —a law firm operating system designed specifically for small and mid-sized firms. It’s how we transformed our leadership team from stressed-out survivors to aligned strategic thinkers. It’s how we cut meeting time, improved decision-making, and turned our firm into a business we actually loved running. Meetings Aren’t the Enemy—Bad Meetings Are The problem with law firm meetings isn’t quantity—it’s quality and clarity. The Way flips the typical meeting culture on its head. Instead of endless unstructured discussions, we use a rhythm of short, purpose-driven meetings that keep the team aligned and the business moving forward. Here’s how it works: 1. Weekly Check-Ins (30 Minutes Max) We run sacred 30-minute meetings each week with our leadership team. The agenda is simple: Good news (1–2 minutes each) Progress snapshots (quick “on schedule” or “off schedule” updates) KPI review (to make sure the business is healthy) One pressing opportunity (a real problem we tackle together) That’s it. We don’t talk in circles. We don’t problem-dump. We don’t meet unless we have a reason. These check-ins have saved us hundreds of hours. More importantly, they’ve made our leaders accountable for their priorities. 2. Monthly Stops (90 Minutes) Once a month, we replace a weekly check-in with a deeper 90-minute review where we explore three opportunities in the business—things we’ve been observing and tracking. This meeting creates space for reflection, cross-functional problem-solving, and strategic pivots. 3. Quarterly Milestones Every 90 days, we run a half-day planning meeting. We review how the last quarter went, identify missed goals (and why), and reset priorities for the next 90 days. Everyone leaves that meeting knowing exactly what they’re responsible for—and how success will be measured. 4. The Annual Meeting (The Big One) The annual meeting is where alignment becomes reality. We reflect, set our 5-year vision, define quarterly milestones, and recommit to our firm’s values. For a lot of firms, this is the first time the leadership team is truly rowing in the same direction. And that, in my experience, changes everything. Communication = Culture = Results When you implement The Way, something surprising happens: your firm gets quiet. The “just checking in” messages disappear. You stop playing calendar Tetris with everyone’s schedules. Team members start solving problems on their own—because they already know the goals, systems, and expectations. The result? More time. More energy. Better decisions. That’s not just our experience—it’s what the research shows: Companies with highly effective communication practices had 47% higher total returns to shareholders over a five-year period (Towers Watson). 86% of employees cite lack of collaboration and ineffective communication as the main causes of workplace failures (Salesforce). High-performing teams are twice as likely to have clarity on goals and individual responsibilities (Harvard Business Review). When law firms build a communication system that reinforces clarity and accountability, the business doesn’t just survive—it scales. The Magic Is in the Structure The genius of The Way is its simplicity. You don’t need an expensive consultant, a team of MBAs, or a complicated org chart to implement it. You just need to: Run a proper Annual Meeting with a clear destination and quarterly milestones. Create a cadence of check-ins (weekly, monthly, and quarterly). Assign responsibility for each milestone. Track a small set of KPIs to know whether the business is healthy. Stick with it. Over time, you’ll start noticing things: People stop asking what the priorities are. Deadlines don’t slip through the cracks. Morale improves, because clarity reduces stress. Leadership becomes a team sport. No More “Winging It” I’ve talked with dozens of firm owners who have some version of this confession: “Honestly, we’re kind of just winging it.” There’s no shame in that. Most of us didn’t go to law school to run businesses. But here we are. What The Wa y offers is a blueprint—not just for meetings, but for alignment, accountability, and long-term success. You don’t have to wing it anymore. You can lead with intention. You can give your team structure. You can run meetings that actually move the business forward. And if you do, the business you’ve always wanted isn’t just possible—it’s inevitable. Final Thoughts You don’t need more meetings. You need better meetings, guided by a better system. The Way was built by lawyers, for lawyers. It’s designed for small and growing firms who want to stop reacting and start leading. It’s not fancy. It’s not magic. It just works. In our firm, implementing The Way tripled our revenue in three years—not by working more, but by working smarter. If your leadership meetings feel aimless, your team seems confused, or your calendar is filled with noise— The Way might be the solution you’ve been looking for. Let’s stop wasting time. Let’s start building the business you deserve. 

“We just can’t find good people.” Sound familiar? You’ve probably heard it in a leadership meeting. Or muttered it to yourself after another fruitless attempt at trolling for resumes on Indeed and LinkedIn. The truth? Hiring in today’s legal market feels like trying to find a unicorn in a thunderstorm. The great ones aren’t applying. The good ones ghost you. The ones who do come through the door often aren’t a fit. And the question law firms keep asking is: “Where are all the great candidates?” But maybe that’s not the right question. Maybe the better question is: “Why would a great candidate choose us?” Hiring Is a Marketing Problem For years, law firms have treated hiring like a back-office function. Put out a job post. Wait for resumes. Complain about the talent pool. Rinse and repeat. But here’s the wake-up call: The hiring market isn’t an HR issue, it’s a marketing issue. You’re not just offering a job. You’re making a promise. A story. A future. And in 2025, the best talent isn’t looking for just a paycheck. They’re looking for purpose. Your Future Hires Are Watching You Just Like Your Future Clients Are Today’s law students and young lawyers are some of the most values-driven professionals the industry has ever seen. They care about more than salary. They care about: Work-life balance (and not just in the brochure) Whether you actually support mental health DEI efforts that go beyond hashtags Whether your firm aligns with their personal values They’re not just Googling your Glassdoor reviews. They’re scrolling your Instagram. Watching your TikToks. Reading your “About Us” page with the same scrutiny you apply to a closing argument. They’re asking: “Would I be proud to work here?” If the answer isn’t clear, or worse, if it’s no, they’re moving on. If You Want Better Talent, Build a Better Brand The firms that are winning the war for talent have figured it out: Your employer brand is just as important as your client-facing brand. You wouldn’t launch a new client service without a clear value proposition, a compelling story, and a consistent message. So why would you hire that way? The same marketing principles that attract clients should be used to attract top-tier talent: Positioning— What makes your firm different from every other mid-size litigation shop? Messaging— Are you telling the story of who you are and why it matters? Social proof— Are your current employees sharing why they love working for you? Clarity— Do your job descriptions sound like human conversations or legalese soup? Values Are the New Differentiator Here’s the part most firms miss: Culture isn’t ping-pong tables or free coffee. It’s what you believe. And today’s hires want to work for a firm that stands for something. That might be: A commitment to justice reform Being trauma-informed in client interactions Supporting working parents Prioritizing mentorship and growth Whatever it is, you need to say it out loud and often. And not just on your Careers page. On your LinkedIn. In interviews. At law school recruiting events. In every story you tell. Because when your values are clear, two things happen: The right people are drawn to you. The wrong people screen themselves out. That’s what strong branding does. “But We’re Not That Interesting…” Yes, you are. Every law firm has a story. A heartbeat. A reason it was started in the first place. The problem is, most firms forget to tell it. They default to vague descriptions like “dedicated to excellence” or “client-centered advocacy”. Phrases that mean nothing and inspire no one. You don’t need to be flashy. You just need to be real. Tell the story of why your founders walked away from BigLaw. Share your vision for building a practice that values family. Highlight the alumni of your summer associate program who’ve gone on to do amazing things. That’s what resonates. Make Marketing a Hiring Tool If you want to attract aligned, invested, high-performing team members, your marketing should speak to them before you ever post the job. Here’s how to start: Audit your online presence. Would you want to work at your firm based on what’s on your website and social media? If not, fix it. Feature your people. Showcase associate wins. Highlight team culture. Turn your people into your best recruiters. Tell real stories. What’s it actually like to work at your firm? What do you believe in? What are you building together? Lead with values. Define your core values and weave them into your marketing, onboarding, and decision-making. Think like a recruiter. Your job posts should sound like invitations, not requisitions. Sell the opportunity, not just the requirements. Final Thoughts: People Don’t Want Perfect, They Want Purpose The firms that attract the best talent in the next 5 years won’t be the ones with the fanciest perks or the biggest budgets. They’ll be the ones who mean it. Who stand for something. Who show up consistently. Who use marketing not just to grow revenue, but to grow community. So, if you’re struggling to hire: stop tweaking your Indeed ad. Start telling a better story. Because in a world full of noise, the firms that win will be the ones that are clear, aligned, and unapologetically themselves. Want a team that actually wants to work for you? Start marketing like it.

Third party litigation funding is the process where third party funders provide money to a plaintiff or to plaintiff’s counsel in exchange for a cut of the proceeds resulting from the underlying litigation or settlement. Until recently, outside funding for litigation was prohibited by the concepts of “maintenance” and “champerty”. The erosion of these common law concepts first began in Australia, then moved to the United Kingdom, before entering the U.S. and changing the litigation landscape. Over the last fifteen years, litigation funding in the U.S. has expanded from a prohibited practice to a $15 billion market, and one that is expected to grow to over $25 billion by 2030. In patent litigation, conservative estimates presume funding undergirds about 30% of all patent litigation. Litigation funding shifts the financial risks of lawsuits away from firms and individual plaintiffs to outsiders willing and able to shoulder that risk. In contrast to the traditional contingency fee model, litigation funding shifts the risk from the firm to the funders. The financial model of litigation funders allows the risk-shifting. Such investments in litigation are non-recourse loans, meaning that whether the suits are won or lost, the lawyers get paid. In addition, litigation funding may help smaller entities and individuals compete with corporations. Without capital from funders, small businesses and even some non-practicing entities would not be able to take their cases to court because they could not compete against a large corporations’ legal departments, outside counsel, and sizeable budgets. Here, funding gives some patent holders a fighting chance. Litigation funding also benefits patent holders by monetizing their claims up front. For example, an influx of capital from a funder can sustain a small startup, help launch its technology, and defend its interests. Without funding, smaller and startup businesses would need to take on all the risks and costs of litigation, and if they won—whether at trial or by settlement—they would have to wait for the case’s resolution to receive any money. Further, there is an argument that litigation funding increases access to justice. When a smaller entity holds an otherwise valuable patent, but one that it cannot litigate due to financial constraints, litigation funding allows the smaller entities access to litigation. Without funding, a small-time patent holder may have no other recourse or access to justice. Nonetheless, litigation funding is not without criticism. For example, funders may exercise significant control over litigation. This could arise from the terms of the agreement. Or the control may come from calculated decisions about where to file to maximize likely return, or determining the parameters of settlements. Or a funder may determine the parameters of settlements. This type of influence can interfere with the professional independence of lawyers and their loyalty to clients. In a similar vein, funding may contravene the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which are designed to ensure that lawyers act in the best interest of their clients. For example, Model Rule 1.2(a) says, “[a] lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter.” But, in some funding agreements, provisions allow funders to make decisions about whether and when to settle. And, unlike attorneys, funders do not owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and may not be acting in their best interest. As another example, Model Rule 5.4 prohibits fee-splitting between a lawyer and a non-lawyer, except under some outlined exceptions. However, some funding agreements violate Rule 5.4’s fee-splitting provision because funders are paid a percentage of the legal fees secured by the plaintiff’s attorney. Another criticism of litigation funding is that it allows outsiders to use courtrooms as a trading floor. Such funding can incentivize the filing of non-meritorious litigation. Litigation is expensive, so most businesses avoid it. Indeed, businesses often settle cases rather than engage in protracted and costly litigation, regardless of whether the claims are legitimate. Since litigation funding shifts the risk from plaintiffs to outsiders, there is less risk associated with non-meritorious claims. Lastly, third party funding in patent suits may pose a threat to national security where the identities of funders are hidden. The fear is that this secrecy could allow foreign adversaries to benefit by influencing the American legal system, devaluing existing patents, interfering with innovation, gaining access to sensitive information, including military technology, evading sanctions, or otherwise harming U.S. interests. With these national security concerns in mind, about two years ago fourteen state attorneys general signed a letter expressing their concerns. As Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, current U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Senator John Kennedy (when he was Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Federal Courts) have also echoed these concerns. In Washington, U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, is leading the charge to regulate. The related hearing, “The U.S. Intellectual Property System and the Impact of Litigation Financed by Third-Party Investors and Foreign Entities,” examined IP litigation financed by third party investors and foreign entities, including the impact of those developments on the U.S. IP system and U.S. national security. Following the hearing, Rep. Issa released the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2024, which requires the disclosure of any third-party that has a right to receive any payment contingent on the outcome of the civil action and require the agreement creating the right to receive payment be produced to the court and named parties. It would not, however, require disclosure of any individuals or entities who do not receive payouts from funds obtained in settlements or court judgments. The Act further includes exceptions for funders who receive payments solely for the purposes of reimbursement or loan repayment. Ultimately, the Act would require transparency and the disclosure of the third-party funders’ involvement to ensure the court and parties are aware of the agreement. In sum, litigation funding may improve access to justice to smaller entities, shifts the risk from lawyers and or clients to others, and keeps many lawyers employed. On the other hand, litigation funding may threaten the professional independence of lawyers, contravene the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, decrease transparency in the legal system, and pose national security risks. Regardless, as a $15 billion industry occurring in about 30% of patent infringement suits, it is a behemoth that has invited much criticism and some government response.

For decades, law firm financial models have been built on a simple premise: people doing lots of work. The industry has functioned on the billable hour, where time is directly equated with money. It has become a universal metric of value. But that model is standing on the edge of a cliff, and over the next five years, it will be pushed off by the rapid and unrelenting advance of artificial intelligence. We are entering a period of fundamental transformation. The implications are not just about technology, but about values, business models, pricing, training, and what it even means to be a lawyer. The traditional calculus of legal services is about to change dramatically. The Crumbling Foundation: Time-Based Pricing in a Post-AI World The billable hour has always had its limitations. It rewards inefficiency, punishes productivity, and creates misaligned incentives between lawyers and clients. But it persisted because clients had few alternatives. That is about to change. AI, particularly generative models, are already transforming the way legal work gets done. Tools like Harvey, Spellbook, and even ChatGPT are accelerating contract review, research, drafting, and analysis. McKinsey projects that up to 44% of legal tasks could be automated by current technologies. Goldman Sachs suggests that as much as 23% of the work of lawyers could be replaced by generative AI. For clients, this is a game-changer. They will no longer tolerate being billed hundreds of hours for tasks that AI can complete in minutes. They will demand efficiency and transparency. They will seek legal partners who align with their values and needs, not those who cling to outdated revenue models. The Rise of In-House Legal Teams and Legal Ops One significant shift we will see is the continued growth and sophistication of in-house legal departments. As law firms lag behind in adopting AI or cling to the billable hour, clients will bring more work in-house. General Counsels, equipped with AI tools and increasingly trained in legal operations, will build leaner, more tech-savvy teams. In fact, the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) reports that 57% of in-house teams are already using legal technology to increase efficiency. The legal ops revolution is not coming. It is here. And it is only accelerating. Clients will simply refuse to pay for inefficiency. They will expect law firms to deploy AI just as they expect them to use email or e-filing systems. Those who fail to do so will be outcompeted by firms that embrace change or by in-house teams that deliver faster, cheaper, and better. A Shift to Values-Based Pricing In this new world, the value of a lawyer will not be in the number of hours they work, but in the judgment they bring. As AI handles more of the grunt work, what clients will pay for is wisdom. Strategic thinking. Creative advocacy. Trusted counsel. Relationships and reputation. This is why we will see a dramatic increase in hourly rates, even as the hours themselves become less central. Lawyers will be hired for the problems they can solve, not the tasks they can perform. Value-based pricing will become normative. This isn’t theoretical. We’re already seeing this shift. At elite firms, partners command rates of $2,000 an hour or more. That rate isn’t about the time it takes to draft a document. It’s about the experience, network, and influence that lawyer brings to the table. In the next five years, that kind of pricing model will become mainstream, not niche. Firms that succeed will shift from selling labor to selling insight. A fifteen-minute phone call that changes the trajectory of a deal will be seen as more valuable than a hundred hours of AI-assisted document review. This is a fundamental reframing of legal value. Implications for Law Firm Business Models These changes will ripple through every part of the firm. First, staffing will change. Fewer junior associates will be needed to grind through discovery or research. Firms will need to be leaner, with a greater emphasis on senior attorneys who can deliver high-value judgment. Compensation models will need to evolve. Originations, relationships, outcomes, and innovation will matter more than sheer billable hours. Firms will invest in knowledge management, AI fluency, and client service over traditional leverage ratios. We will also see the rise of new kinds of firms entirely. Boutique, virtual-first, AI-native practices will emerge and thrive. They will offer flat fees, subscriptions, and project-based pricing. They will meet clients where they are. And they will force legacy firms to adapt or die. Training Tomorrow’s Lawyer If the work of lawyers is changing, then so too must the way we train them. Law schools can no longer produce attorneys who are good at issue spotting and memorization alone. They must cultivate empathy, creativity, adaptability, and business sense. The curriculum will shift. Expect to see more courses in legal tech, innovation, negotiation, and human judgment. Clinics and experiential learning will become even more critical. AI literacy will be as essential as legal writing. And beyond law school, firms will need to rethink mentorship and training. Associates will not learn by osmosis from endless hours in the trenches. They will need structured development and exposure to strategic thinking early and often. The Lawyer as Strategic Partner In a world where machines do much of the heavy lifting, the human lawyer becomes even more important—not as a technician, but as a strategic partner. This is the lawyer who understands the client’s business, anticipates issues, and guides them through risk and opportunity. The human edge will be judgment, empathy, persuasion, and the ability to operate in ambiguity. Lawyers who can synthesize complex information, build coalitions, and negotiate outcomes will be indispensable. This is a hopeful vision. It is not about obsolescence. It is about elevation. AI will take over the mundane so that lawyers can do what they do best: help people solve problems and make better decisions. Conclusion: Five Years to Reinvent the Profession The legal industry has five years. Five years to rethink its pricing, value, and purpose. Five years to reimagine its training, staffing, and culture. Five years to build a profession that is not only AI-resilient but AI-enhanced. The firms that will thrive are those that embrace this moment. That see AI not as a threat, but as a catalyst. That understand that the billable hour is not sacrosanct. That are willing to lead. The upside here is agile firms will be able to serve clients whose matters they were previously unable to serve. Because the future is not about time. It is about value. And the time to start is now. 

In an article I wrote long ago, I encouraged law firm managers and owners not to manage by email. Email is mainly ineffective for conveying messages or instructions to specific employees. Emails can be helpful when conveying firm-wide messages. They can also be used if a law firm is trying to document something for legal purposes with a specific employee. However, email can often be misinterpreted. Frequently, somebody can read an email and take it the wrong way. They may think somebody is upset when they are not, or they might think something is clear when it is vague. Employees Are Not Reading Your Emails Another drawback of sending many emails within your law firm is that few employees read them. Law firm managers and owners often send detailed instructions to other employees, which could involve legal or administrative tasks they want completed. However, with the voluminous number of emails flying on a given day, many employees are not even reading your emails. If they are reading them, they may just be glossing over them quickly. Emails sent after hours are read with even less frequency than emails sent during work hours. this reason, when a law firm owner or manager wants to convey an essential message to an employee, it is almost always better to speak to that person directly. If that is not possible, calling that employee on the phone or having a virtual meeting with them can be far more effective. A law firm owner or manager can email to follow up on the conversation and document it. However, if the instructions are emailed, the employee often has not even thoroughly read the email. They Should Read My Emails Upon hearing this, many law firm managers and owners insist that employees read their emails. They might think the employee is disrespectful or insubordinate by not reading their emails. The reality, however, is that if the law firm manager or owner wants a task done, they need to walk down the hall and talk to somebody, call them, or do a virtual meeting with that employee. Talking to somebody directly increases the chances of the task being done correctly. On the other hand, if the law firm manager is firing off instructions via email, the chances of that task being done correctly infinitely decrease. A law firm manager or owner can insist on sending lots of emails. However, if the emails are not working, the law firm manager or owner needs to change by communicating less by email.

The legal profession, steeped in tradition and hierarchy, is undergoing profound generational shifts that challenge the way law firms operate internally. These shifts reveal the complexities of managing intergenerational leadership and highlight the need for firms to adapt to a rapidly evolving landscape. The Evolution of Leadership in Law Firms Traditionally, law firms have been led by senior partners who rose through the ranks, often dedicating decades to their firms with an implicit understanding of long-term loyalty and eventual leadership. This model emphasized extensive hours, sacrifice, and the eventual reward of equity partnership. However, the career mindsets of younger generations have upended this traditional trajectory. When I was young in my career, the expectation was 60-hour work weeks. The M&A attorney in the office next to me even had a sleeping bag in his office. Unfortunately, I bought into that leadership mentality, and my expectations for my staff were often unrealistic and perfectionist. Over the years, I have realized how important understanding generational influences and expectations can be in altering your career trajectory and how you lead. Today, younger lawyers approach their careers with a vastly different set of priorities. For many, the goal of making partner holds less allure, and work-life balance is a non-negotiable cornerstone of their professional lives. This generational shift is not inherently negative; in fact, younger lawyers’ ability to set clear boundaries and advocate for balance is commendable. However, these boundaries often collide with senior leadership’s expectations and working styles, creating friction within firms. The Challenges Facing Leadership Leadership in law firms now faces the dual challenge of honoring the well-established demands of client relationships while navigating internal generational dynamics. Increased Pressure on Leadership: Senior leaders are more taxed than ever as they strive to bridge the gap between maintaining client satisfaction and accommodating the workstyles of younger lawyers. While young attorneys excel at setting boundaries, firm leaders’ responsibilities often extend beyond their own professional boundaries—responding to clients at all hours, mentoring associates, and driving business development. The result is a leadership cohort at risk of burnout as they shoulder the burdens of these shifting expectations. Client Expectations in a Changing Landscape: Clients themselves are evolving. They demand efficiency, innovation, and responsiveness, leaving little room for the traditional methods of operating that once characterized the legal sphere. As client needs evolve, law firm leaders must adapt and ensure their teams align with these expectations while maintaining internal harmony. How Leaders Can Embrace Change and Be Impactful Adapting to these generational and client-driven changes requires intentional strategies. Below are a few actionable approaches for law firm leaders: Foster Open Communication: Leaders must prioritize transparent, consistent dialogue across all levels of the firm. Understanding younger lawyers’ motivations, challenges, and goals can help bridge the generational divide. This includes creating forums for associates to share their perspectives and leadership to share insights into the broader business implications of their decisions. Lead by Example in Boundary Setting: While it’s critical for younger lawyers to set boundaries, firm leaders must also model sustainable practices. Demonstrating the importance of taking breaks, delegating effectively, and respecting personal time can help shift the firm’s culture to one of mutual respect. Innovate Career Pathways: Recognize that the traditional path to partnership no longer suits every associate. Leaders should explore alternative career trajectories within the firm, such as hybrid roles, project-based leadership opportunities, or client-facing non-equity positions. Some law firms are even creating flexible hour arrangements for associates that allow a “choose your own adventure” type model that can change when the associate’s circumstances change. For example, Steptoe LLP recently introduced flexible billable hour tracks for associates as part of their revamped compensation system, allowing lawyers to tailor their career progression to their personal and professional needs… Invest in Leadership Development: Equip partners and senior attorneys with the skills to manage intergenerational teams effectively. This includes training in emotional intelligence, change management, and mentorship tailored to varying generational needs. Recognizing this industry-wide challenge, we are working with key collaborators to develop a unique conference and training initiative to help professional services organizations, including law firms, address these intergenerational leadership issues through targeted learning and development initiatives. Use Leadership Voices to Drive Cultural Change: Senior leaders must be vocal advocates for evolving firm culture. By aligning internal strategies with client expectations and fostering a workplace where all generations feel valued, leaders can shape a more cohesive and resilient organization. Intergenerational leadership within law firms is no longer a theoretical challenge but a practical reality requiring immediate attention. By understanding the differing perspectives and motivations of today’s workforce, law firm leaders can turn these challenges into opportunities. With intentionality and innovation, leadership can create a thriving firm that meets the needs of its people, clients, and the broader legal market.