Practice Management

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.

Effective Client Engagement Strategies for Law Firms In today’s competitive legal market, client engagement is not just a buzzword—it’s a necessity. Law firms that prioritize and excel in client engagement are more likely to foster lasting relationships, earn repeat business, and gain referrals. Here, we’ll explore effective client engagement strategies that can help law firms stand out and succeed. 1. Understand the Client Journey Effective client engagement starts with a deep understanding of the client journey. This involves mapping out every touchpoint a client has with your firm, from the initial inquiry to the final resolution of their case. By visualizing the client journey, law firms can identify opportunities to enhance the client experience and address potential pain points. 2. Personalize the Client Experience Personalization is key to building strong client relationships. Clients want to feel valued and understood. Law firms can achieve this by tailoring their communication and services to meet the individual needs of each client. This could involve personalized emails, customized legal advice, and remembering important dates like case milestones or client birthdays. Small gestures can make a big impact. 3. Leverage Technology Incorporating technology into your client engagement strategy can streamline processes and improve the overall client experience. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems can help law firms keep track of client interactions, preferences, and history. Well-utilized GenAI tools have the potential to increase efficiency and reduce client costs. Additionally, client portals can provide a secure and convenient way for clients to access documents, communicate with their legal team, and stay updated on their case progress. 4. Communicate Proactively Proactive communication is essential for maintaining client trust and satisfaction. Law firms should keep clients informed about their case status, relevant legislative and regulatory updates, upcoming deadlines, and any changes that might affect them. Regular communication can prevent misunderstandings and demonstrate that the firm is diligently working on their behalf and keeping them top of mind even when not engaged in an active case or transaction. Furthermore, being available to answer questions and address concerns promptly is crucial. 5. Develop a Strong Online Presence An effective online presence is critical for client engagement. The majority of clients find, evaluate, and interact with firms online. Law firms should invest in a professional website that provides valuable information and is easy to navigate on desktop, tablet, and mobile. Additionally, maintaining active social media profiles and publishing regular blog posts can help establish the firm as a thought leader and keep clients engaged. Online reviews and testimonials can also bolster credibility and attract new clients. 6. Offer Educational Resources Providing educational resources is a great way to engage clients and showcase your firm’s knowledge. This could include blog posts, FAQs, webinars, whitepapers, and eBooks that address common legal issues and offer practical advice. By offering valuable content, law firms can build trust with current and prospective clients and position themselves as knowledgeable and helpful. High-quality content is also advantageous for SEO, as it is recognized by Google’s algorithm and can boost your ranking in search results. 7. Foster a Client-Centric Culture Creating a client-centric culture within your firm is fundamental to effective client engagement. This involves training staff to prioritize client needs, utilizing technology to support staff efforts, actively seeking feedback, and continuously looking for ways to improve the client experience. Law firms should encourage open communication and collaboration among team members to ensure that every client receives the best possible service. 8. Implement Feedback Mechanisms Client feedback is invaluable for understanding how well your firm is meeting client expectations and where there is room for improvement. Law firms should implement feedback mechanisms such as surveys, follow-up calls, and review requests. And it should not end there—acting on client feedback is essential to demonstrate that the firm values their input and is committed to enhancing their experience. 9. Build Long-Term Relationships Building long-term relationships with clients goes beyond resolving their immediate legal issues. Law firms should strive to be a trusted advisor for clients, offering support and guidance even after a case or transaction is closed. This could involve regular check-ins, providing updates on relevant legal developments, and offering additional services as needed. 10. Highlight Success Stories Sharing success stories and case studies can be a powerful way to engage clients and build trust. Highlighting how your firm has successfully helped other clients can provide reassurance and demonstrate your experience. Success stories can be shared on your website, in newsletters, and on social media to showcase the positive impact your firm has had on clients’ lives. Effective client engagement is crucial for law firms aiming to build lasting relationships and achieve long-term success. By understanding the client journey, law firms can enhance their client engagement strategies and stand out in a competitive market. Investing in these strategies not only improves client satisfaction but also drives growth and fosters a loyal client base. For law firms looking to delve deeper into these concepts, our upcoming online course on client journey mapping offers comprehensive insights and practical tools to master client engagement and elevate your firm’s success. Stay tuned for more information and enroll to transform your client engagement approach.

It’s reported that 69% of employees are more likely to stay with a company for three years if they received a great onboarding experience. First impressions matter, especially when it comes to new hire onboarding. A strong onboarding experience sets the tone for an employee’s journey, significantly impacting retention, productivity, and engagement. But here’s the problem: Most companies miss the mark. Whether it’s due to a lack of time, resources, or a structured plan, onboarding gaps often lead to disengagement and early turnover. So, how can HR teams make onboarding more efficient and enjoyable? Let’s dive into five best practices that will turn your new hires into long-term, engaged employees. What is Involved in Onboarding? Onboarding isn’t just about paperwork and introductions. Onboarding is a structured process that helps new hires adjust to their roles, understand company culture, and hit the ground running. A successful onboarding program includes: Preboarding: Ensuring paperwork, I-9s, background checks, and technology setup are completed before day one. Orientation: Introducing new hires to company values, policies, and their team. Training: Providing role-specific knowledge, compliance education, and career development resources. Integration: Encouraging social connections and mentorship to help new employees feel welcomed. Continuous Support: Regular check-ins, performance goals, and career development opportunities. By structuring onboarding thoughtfully, companies set employees up for success from day one. Why is Onboarding Important? Onboarding is the foundation an employee builds on during their time at a company. If the foundation is shaky, the employee will likely have a harder time finding results. A well-structured onboarding program is important because it should: Improve retention: Employees who feel supported are more likely to stay. Boost productivity: New hires get up to speed faster with the right training and resources. Enhance company culture: Fostering early engagement strengthens team connections. Reduce compliance risks: Ensuring proper documentation and legal adherence prevents costly mistakes. Most importantly, onboarding helps create a sense of belonging—when employees feel valued and understand their role’s impact, they feel pride in their work and are motivated to continue chasing new goals. Now that we understand the “why” behind onboarding, it’s time to explore the “how” with some best practices to ensure new hire onboarding success. Five Best Practices for New Hire Onboarding Success 1. Ditch Generic Training—Make It Role-Specific Nobody wants to sit through hours of irrelevant training. New hires should receive training that is tailored to their specific roles rather than generic content that is vague or too surface-level for what they will actually be doing day-to-day. Effective training includes: Role-specific learning: Aligning training with job responsibilities to accelerate performance. Preboarding assessments: Identifying knowledge gaps before the start date for a personalized learning plan. Interactive learning: Hands-on exercises, shadowing, and mentorship programs to reinforce skills. Role-specific training helps new hires gain confidence and become productive members of the team faster. Plus, using a learning management system makes it easy to customize training plans, track progress, and ensure every employee gets the knowledge they need to succeed. 2. Conduct Thorough Background Screening Onboarding success can actually start before day one. Background screening is a critical step in ensuring you have the right hires with the right qualifications. Your background screening process should involve: Role-specific checks: One-size-fits-all checks won’t fly for certain specialized roles. It’s important to customize your background checks to be role-specific so that you get the most out of them. Efficient screening solutions: Background checks shouldn’t be what’s slowing down your hiring. You should have a background screening solution that can keep up with your hiring needs. Transparent Communication: Being transparent with candidates helps establish trust and avoid frustrations. Staying compliant: Understand federal and specific state regulations to ensure that you are following compliant screening processes. By completing a thorough and specific background check, you can be confident that your new hire is qualified and ready for the rest of the onboarding process. 3. Get Your Paperwork (and Process) in Order HR teams already handle enough paperwork, but onboarding is the best time to ensure proper organization and compliance so you don’t have to retrace your steps later on if you end up facing an audit. Key areas to focus on include: Form I-9 Management: Small mistakes can lead to big fines, so it’s important to double-check that your I-9s are completed correctly or use a solution that helps you ensure I-9 compliance. Automated Task Reminders: Ensure deadlines for required documents and training modules are met. Go Electronic: If you’re still paper-based, consider looking into electronic document management for easier organization. When documentation is well-managed, HR teams can focus more on engaging new employees rather than chasing down paperwork. 4. Make Team Integration a Priority New hires should feel like part of the team from day one. Developing new connections is one of the most exciting and rewarding parts of starting a new role, and you can help them build strong relationships by: Assigning mentors or onboarding buddies to provide guidance and answer questions. Hosting a virtual or in-person lunch where team members can casually chat and get to know each other outside of work topics. Assigning a “first-week project” that encourages collaboration with different team members and gives them an early win. Setting up a “get to know you” survey to match new hires with colleagues with similar interests or hobbies. A supportive team dynamic makes for better results. When new employees feel comfortable, they are more likely to ask questions and not be afraid to speak up, which helps speed up their onboarding process. 5. Follow Up with Clear Goals and Check-Ins Onboarding shouldn’t stop after the first week. Continuous support is the secret to long-term success, and there are several ways you can make sure your new hire is thriving by: Setting 30-, 60-, and 90-day goals to provide achievable milestones and track progress. Conducting regular check-ins to address concerns, offer feedback, and provide support. Gathering feedback on the onboarding process to make improvements for future hires. Providing additional training and development opportunities to help them grow in their role. Consistent follow-up shows that you care about the employee’s growth early on and helps remind them of their onboarding goals so that they continue actively working toward achieving them. 6. What Happens After Onboarding? Now that onboarding is complete, it’s time to keep the momentum going. A strong start is important, but long-term engagement and career development are what truly drive retention and success. Here’s how to ensure employees continue to grow and thrive: Performance Reviews: Establish structured feedback sessions with clear, actionable insights. Set personalized growth plans that align with both company objectives and individual career aspirations. Ongoing Training & Development: Offer continuous learning opportunities, such as skills workshops, cross-training programs, or certifications, to keep employees engaged and evolving in their roles. Mentorship & Career Growth: Connect employees with mentors who can provide guidance, career advice, and leadership development opportunities. Encourage networking within the company to foster collaboration and internal mobility. Employee Engagement Initiatives: Keep employees motivated through recognition programs, peer appreciation, and team-building activities. Cultivate a culture of transparency, inclusivity, and open communication. Investing in long-term employee development helps sustain motivation and drive business success. How to Build Better Onboarding Today Onboarding involves many moving parts, and having the right tools makes all the difference. A seamless process not only ensures compliance but also enhances employee engagement and retention. Mitratech’s HR solutions help streamline and optimize every stage of onboarding, including: Background Screening: Quickly and efficiently verify new hires while ensuring compliance. I-9 Management: Simplify employment eligibility verification and maintain accurate records. Learning Management: Provide structured training programs that set employees up for success. And More! For onboarding and beyond, our HR and compliance solutions are designed to make things simple for HR teams.

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.