Thinking Like a Lawyer: Agentic AI and the New Legal Playbook
In the 20th century, mastering “thinking like a lawyer” meant developing a rigorous, precedent-driven mindset. Today, we find ourselves on the cusp of yet another evolution in legal thinking—one driven by agentic AI models that can plan, deliberate, and solve problems in ways that rival and complement human expertise.
In this article, we’ll explore how agentic reasoning powers cutting-edge AI like OpenAI’s o1 and o3, as well as DeepSeek’s R1 model. We’ll also look at a technical approach, the Mixture of Experts (MoE) architecture, that makes these models adept at “thinking” through complex legal questions. Finally, we’ll connect the dots for practicing attorneys, showing how embracing agentic AI can boost profitability, improve efficiency, and elevate legal practice in an ever-competitive marketplace.
The Business of Law Meets Agentic Reasoning
Legal practice is as much about economics as it is about jurisprudence. When Richard Susskind speaks of technology forcing lawyers to reconsider traditional business models, or when Ethan Mollick highlights the way AI can empower us with a co-inteligence, they’re tapping into the same reality: law firms are businesses first and foremost. Profit margins and client satisfaction matter, and integrating agentic AI is quickly becoming a competitive imperative.
Still, many lawyers hesitate, fearing automation will erode billable hours or overshadow human expertise. The key is to realize that agentic AI, tools that can autonomously plan, analyze, and even execute tasks, don’t aim to replace lawyers. Instead, they empower lawyers to practice at a higher level. By offloading rote tasks to AI, legal professionals gain the freedom to focus on nuanced advocacy, strategic thinking, and relationship-building.
A Quick Tour: o1, o3, and DeepSeek R1
OpenAI’s o1: Laying the Agentic Foundation
Introduced in September 2024, o1 marked a significant leap forward in AI’s reasoning capabilities. Its defining feature is its “private chain of thought,” an internal deliberation process that allows it to tackle problems step by step before generating a final output. This approach is akin to an associate who silently sketches out arguments on a legal pad before presenting a polished brief to the partner.
This internal “thinking” has proven especially useful in scientific, mathematical, and legal reasoning tasks, where superficial pattern-matching often falls short. The trade-off? Increased computational demands and slightly slower response times. But for most law firms, especially those dealing with complex litigation or regulatory analysis, accuracy often trumps speed.
OpenAI’s o3: Pushing Boundaries
Building on o1, o3 arrived in December 2024 with even stronger agentic capabilities. Designed to dedicate more deliberation time to each query, o3 consistently outperforms o1 in coding, mathematics, and scientific benchmarks. For lawyers, this improvement translates to more thorough statutory analysis, contract drafting, and fewer oversights in due diligence.
One highlight is o3’s performance on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus for Artificial General Intelligence (ARC-AGI). It scores nearly three times higher than o1, underscoring the leap in its ability to handle abstract reasoning, akin to spotting hidden legal issues or anticipating an opponent’s argument.
DeepSeek R1: The Open-Source Challenger
January 2025 saw the release of DeepSeek R1, an open-source model from a Chinese AI startup. With performance on key benchmarks (like the American Invitational Mathematics Examination and Codeforces) exceeding o1 but just shy of o3, DeepSeek R1 has quickly attracted viral attention. Perhaps its biggest draw is cost-effectiveness: it’s reportedly 90-95% cheaper than o1. That kind of pricing is hard to ignore, especially for smaller firms or legal tech startups that need powerful AI without breaking the bank. DeepSeek R1’s open-source license also opens the door to customization: imagine a specialized “legal edition” any firm can adapt.
The market impact has been swift: DeepSeek R1’s launch catapulted its associated app to the top of the Apple App Store and triggered a sell-off in AI tech stocks. This frenzy underscores a critical lesson: the world of AI is volatile, competitive, and global. Law firms shouldn’t pin their entire strategy on a single vendor or model; instead, they should stay agile, ready to explore whichever AI solution best fits their needs.
How Agentic Reasoning Actually Works
All these models—o1, o3, and DeepSeek R1—share a common thread: agentic reasoning. They’re built to do more than just respond; they deliberate. Picture an AI “intern” that doesn’t just copy-and-paste from a template but weighs the merits of different statutes, checks your prior briefs, and even flags contradictory language before you finalize a contract.
But how do they manage this level of autonomy under the hood? Enter the Mixture of Experts (MoE) architecture.
Mixture of Experts (MoE) Architecture
Experts: Think of each expert as a specialized “mini-model” focusing on a single domain—perhaps case law parsing, contract drafting, or statutory interpretation.
Gating Mechanism: This is the brains of the operation. Upon receiving an input (e.g., “Draft a motion to compel in a federal product liability case”), the gating system selects the subset of experts most capable of handling that task.
The process is akin to sending your question to the right department in a law firm: corporate experts for an M&A agreement, litigation experts for a discovery motion. By activating only the relevant experts for a given task, the AI remains computationally efficient, scaling easily without ballooning resource needs. This sparse activation mirrors an attorney’s own approach to problem-solving; you don’t bring in your tax partner for a maritime dispute, and you don’t put your entire legal team on every single project.
For agentic reasoning, MoE models shine because they allow the AI to break down multi-faceted tasks into manageable chunks, using the best “sub-models” for each piece. In other words, the AI can autonomously plan which mini-experts to consult, deliberate internally on their advice, and then execute a cohesive final output, much like a senior partner synthesizing input from various practice groups into one winning brief.
Practical Impacts on Legal Workflows
Research and Drafting
Lawyers spend countless hours researching regulations and precedents. With agentic AI, that time shrinks dramatically. For instance, an MoE-based system could route textual queries to the “case law expert” while simultaneously consulting a “regulatory expert.” The gating mechanism ensures each question goes to the sub-model best suited to answer it. That means more accurate, tailored research in less time.
Document Review and Due Diligence
High-stakes M&A deals or massive litigation cases involve reviewing thousands of pages of documents. Agentic AI can quickly triage which documents to flag for deeper human review, finding hidden clauses or issues that might otherwise take an associate weeks to spot. The result? Faster, cheaper due diligence that can be billed in alternative ways: flat fees, success fees, or other value-based structures, enhancing client satisfaction and firm profitability.
Strategic Advisory
Perhaps the most exciting application is strategic planning. By running different hypothetical arguments or settlement options through an agentic model, attorneys can gain insights into possible outcomes. Imagine a “simulation-expert” sub-model that compares potential trial outcomes based on past jury verdicts, local court rules, and judge profiles. While final decisions rest with the lawyer (and client), AI offers a data-driven edge in deciding whether to settle, proceed, or counter-offer.
Profitability: Beyond the Billable Hour
One of the biggest hurdles to adopting AI is the fear that automated tasks will reduce billable hours. But consider how value-based billing or flat-fee arrangements can transform the equation. If AI cuts a 10-hour research task down to 2, you can offer clients a predictable cost and still maintain or even improve your margin. Clients often prefer certainty, and they value speed if it means resolving matters sooner.
Additionally, adopting agentic AI can allow your firm to take on more cases or offer new services, like real-time compliance monitoring or rapid contract generation. Scaling your practice to handle more volume without expanding headcount can be a powerful revenue driver.
The Human Element: Lawyers as Conductors
Agentic AI models are not a substitute for the judgment, empathy, and moral responsibility that define great lawyering. Rather, think of AI as your personal ensemble of experts, each playing a specialized instrument. You remain the conductor, guiding the orchestra to create a harmonious legal argument or transaction.
If anything, the lawyer’s role becomes more vital in an AI-driven world. Your expertise ensures the AI’s recommendations make sense in the real world of courts, regulations, and human relationships. Your ethical obligations and professional standards guarantee that client confidentiality is safeguarded, conflicts of interest are managed, and justice is served.
Closing Thoughts
The real paradigm shift here comes from recognizing how AI agents, powered by a Mixture of Experts architecture, can function like a fully staffed legal team, all contained within a single system. Picture a virtual army of associates, each specialized in key practice areas, orchestrated to dynamically route tasks to the right “expert.” The result? A law firm that can harness collective knowledge at scale, ensuring top-notch work product and drastically reducing turnaround times.
Rather than replacing human talent, this approach enhances it. Lawyers can channel their energy into strategic thinking, client relationships, and creative advocacy, those tasks that define the very essence of the profession. Meanwhile, agentic AI handles heavy lifting in research, analysis, and repetitive drafting, enabling teams to serve more clients, tackle more complex matters, and ultimately become more impactful and profitable than ever before.
Far from an existential threat, these AI advancements offer us the freedom to practice law at its best, delivering deeper insights with greater efficiency. In embracing these technologies, we build a future where legal professionals can make more meaningful contributions to both their firms and the broader society they serve.
The Growth of AI Law: Exploring Legal Challenges in Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping industries, decision-making processes, and creative fields. Its influence spans healthcare, transportation, communication, and entertainment, introducing unique challenges for existing legal systems.
Traditional laws often fail to address the complexities AI introduces, resulting in the rise of a specialized legal field: AI law. Attorneys in this area must tackle intricate issues, such as regulating machine-generated content, ensuring data privacy, and assigning accountability when AI systems fail.
What Is AI Law?
Generally, AI law deals with the legal implications of artificial intelligence. In practice, his specialty focuses on any legal areas that AI interacts with, including intellectual property disputes, privacy regulations, bias in algorithms, and liability concerns. AI’s integration into business and daily life drives the need for legal professionals with deep expertise in both law and technology. Lawyers in AI law often work with companies developing AI tools, governments crafting regulations, and individuals affected by AI-driven decisions.
AI law also bridges gaps between technological advancements and ethical considerations. For example, legal systems must decide how to handle decisions made by autonomous systems, which are neither human nor bound by the same rules. This evolving area provides a unique opportunity for legal professionals to influence the future of technology policy.
Key Challenges in AI Law
Ownership of AI-Generated Content
AI systems like ChatGPT and DALL-E generate creative works, but questions remain about who owns these outputs. Current copyright laws require human authorship for protection. For example, the U.S. Copyright Office recently adopted a policy that purely AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted. Under Copyright Office policy, applicants for registration have a “duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration.”
Ownership disputes complicate business operations. Developers, users, and organizations may all claim rights to AI-generated works. Attorneys must draft contracts clarifying these rights to prevent litigation. This issue also raises broader questions about whether existing intellectual property laws need reform to accommodate AI.
Data Privacy Issues
AI depends on vast amounts of data to function, much of which is personal and sensitive. For instance, AI-powered healthcare tools analyze patient data to predict diseases, while social media platforms use algorithms to infer user preferences. These applications expose gaps in current privacy laws, which were designed without AI’s capabilities in mind.
Lawyers specializing in AI law must address compliance with regulations like GDPR and CCPA while considering AI-specific risks. For example, an AI tool might infer health risks from social media activity, bypassing traditional privacy safeguards. Attorneys help organizations balance innovation with consumer trust by drafting policies that align with legal requirements and ethical standards.
Algorithmic Bias and Accountability
Bias in AI algorithms presents a serious legal and ethical challenge. Historical data used to train AI often reflects societal inequalities, which AI systems can perpetuate. For example, hiring algorithms may favor male candidates over females, while predictive policing tools disproportionately target minority communities.
Accountability for biased outcomes is unclear. Should the blame fall on developers, organizations deploying the AI, or those who provided the data? Attorneys working in this field advocate for greater transparency in AI decision-making processes. They also push for policies requiring regular audits of algorithms to identify and mitigate bias.
Liability for AI Failures
As AI systems gain autonomy, determining liability becomes increasingly complex. When a self-driving car causes an accident, who is responsible—the manufacturer, the software developer, or the owner? Similar dilemmas arise in healthcare, where AI tools assist in diagnosis and treatment but may provide harmful advice.
Current liability frameworks are not designed for these scenarios. Lawyers specializing in AI law must navigate these gaps, helping establish clear rules for assigning responsibility. They also work with insurers to develop policies that account for AI-related risks.
Why AI Law Requires Specialization
AI law requires a unique blend of legal expertise, technological knowledge, and ethical insight. Traditional legal training does not fully prepare attorneys to address AI’s complexities, making specialization essential. Lawyers must understand how AI systems work, interpret evolving regulations, and address ethical implications.
Education for AI Lawyers
Leading universities now offer courses focusing on AI and its legal challenges. For example, the University of California, Berkeley, provides specialized training to equip legal professionals with the skills needed in this emerging field through the Berkeley Law AI Institute and the Berkeley AI Policy Hub. Continuing education is also critical, because AI evolves rapidly, and attorneys must stay updated on technological advancements and regulatory changes. Seminars, certifications, and workshops help legal professionals remain effective in this dynamic area.
Ethics in AI
Ethics play a central role in AI law. The American Bar Association released its first ever guidance for lawyers on the use of AI on July 29, 2024. Beyond ensuring compliance, lawyers must advise clients on responsible AI use. This includes promoting fairness, preventing harm, and aligning technology with societal values. For instance, attorneys may recommend policies to increase transparency in decision-making algorithms, fostering trust between companies and users. Ethical considerations also influence regulatory frameworks. Governments and organizations are increasingly prioritizing ethical AI practices, making expertise in this area crucial for legal professionals.
Opportunities for Lawyers in AI Law
As AI continues to develop, knowledgeable AI lawyers become more necessary, and opportunities for lawyers to apply this specialization grow. “This is an emerging and necessary practice area in law, spurred by rapid development and integration of AI into society and business at all levels,” urges Jay McAllister, CEO of Paragon Tech, Inc. “Attorneys who opt to ignore these developments will find themselves at an ever-increasing disadvantage when compared to those who embrace AI and seek to understand its mechanics and implications.”
Advising Companies
Businesses adopting AI face complex legal and ethical challenges. From data privacy compliance to intellectual property disputes, companies need guidance to navigate these issues. Lawyers specializing in AI law help organizations develop governance frameworks, draft contracts, and manage risks. Startups and tech companies often seek legal advice during the development of AI tools. Attorneys play a key role in ensuring that these technologies comply with regulations while maintaining ethical standards. This advisory role is essential for fostering innovation in a responsible manner.
Resolving Legal Disputes
Disputes involving AI are becoming more common. These range from copyright claims over AI-generated content to liability cases involving autonomous vehicles. Lawyers with expertise in AI law handle these cases, often setting new legal precedents. For example, they may argue whether a user’s input into an AI system constitutes co-authorship, shaping how courts interpret intellectual property laws.
Shaping Policy
AI law is still in its infancy, and legal frameworks are far from complete. Lawyers have the opportunity to influence how these regulations are written. By participating in policy discussions, they help ensure that AI technologies are governed in a way that balances innovation with accountability. Policy work also includes advocating for greater transparency and fairness in AI systems. Legal professionals can contribute to creating guidelines that protect individual rights while fostering technological progress.
The Future of AI Law
AI law is a rapidly growing field with immense potential. It challenges lawyers to adapt traditional legal principles to a technology-driven world. Attorneys must combine legal expertise with technical literacy and ethical awareness to address AI’s unique challenges.
The demand for AI law specialists is only expected to grow as AI becomes more integrated into society. Legal professionals in this field have the chance to shape how AI is developed, regulated, and used. By addressing key issues in data privacy, bias, and liability, they ensure that AI serves society responsibly.
AI law represents a transformative opportunity for the legal profession. Attorneys who embrace this field can lead in creating policies and frameworks that protect human rights while enabling technological progress. The journey to commit to this developing area of legal practice requires dedication and collaboration, but a career in AI law could offer the chance to make a lasting impact on society.
CTA Update: Enforcement Remains Suspended Despite U.S. Supreme Court Granting Stay of Preliminary Injunction
Go-To Guide:
On Jan. 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the U.S. government’s request for a stay of the nationwide preliminary injunction of the CTA issued in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry.
The Supreme Court was not asked to address an injunction issued by another federal judge, which ordered preliminary relief to prevent CTA enforcement on Jan. 7, 2025 (Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury).
FinCEN confirmed that reporting companies under the CTA rulemaking are not currently required to file BOI reports and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the Smith order remains in force.
Given the rapidly changing landscape, reporting companies under the CTA rulemaking should continue to monitor CTA developments so they can be prepared to file Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reports if the injunction is once again stayed, lifted, or otherwise made ineffective (e.g., via FinCEN reversing its position).
On Jan. 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the U.S. government’s request for a stay (SCOTUS Order) of the nationwide preliminary injunction of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry.1 According to the brief order, the stay remains in effect pending disposition of the appeal before the Fifth Circuit and subsequent disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if any.
Oral arguments for the expedited Fifth Circuit appeal are scheduled for March 25, 2025.
Background
The status of the CTA has shifted multiple times since Dec. 3, 2024, when a Texas district court in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry (formerly Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland), preliminarily enjoined the CTA and its BOI reporting rule (Reporting Rule) on a nationwide basis, approximately four weeks ahead of a key Jan. 1, 2025, deadline. As we previously reported, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) appealed that ruling, and on Dec. 23, 2024, a motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction, allowing the CTA to go back into effect. Three days following the stay, on Dec. 26, 2024, a different Fifth Circuit panel issued an order to vacate the motion panel’s stay, effectively reinstating the nationwide preliminary injunction against the CTA and the Reporting Rule. On Dec. 31, 2024, the U.S. government filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to stay the preliminary injunction once again.
On Jan. 7, 2025, another federal judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered preliminary relief barring CTA enforcement in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury.2 To date, the government has not appealed the ruling in Smith.
The SCOTUS Order
In response to the SCOTUS Order, FinCEN updated its website on Jan. 24, 2024, noting:
As a separate nationwide order issued by a different federal judge in Texas (Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury) still remains in place, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN despite the Supreme Court’s action in Texas Top Cop Shop [emphasis added]. Reporting companies also are not subject to liability if they fail to file this information while the Smith order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.
Takeaways
No filings under the CTA are currently required by law, including the initial BOI reports that reporting companies formed or registered prior to 2024 would otherwise have been required to file by Jan. 13, 2025, pursuant to an extension that FinCEN granted on Dec. 27, 2024.
While enforcement of the CTA remains suspended, reporting companies and affected individuals should continue to monitor CTA developments and consider what steps they may need to take to be prepared to file their BOI reports in short order if the injunction is once again stayed, lifted, or otherwise made ineffective.
1 McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., No. 24A653, 2025 WL 272062 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2025).
2 See Smith v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury, No. 6:24-CV-336-JDK, 2025 WL 41924 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2025)
Lawyer on the Move: Practical Tips for Attorneys Considering a Lateral Move
Question: I’m an associate considering a move to another law firm. Should I use a recruiter in connection with this process?
In my experience, it is helpful to use a recruiter in connection with a lateral move. A recruiter can help assist you with the process, especially if this is the first time you have made a move. The recruiter also can introduce you to firms that you may not have considered and help you prepare for the interview process. A recruiter can provide you with guidance on what is happening in the marketplace and provide you with what to expect in terms of compensation and bonus. Recruiters can also answer your questions regarding current topics such as in office versus remote work and discuss with you the firm’s expectations. The more information you have, the better position you will be in to determine if making a move at this point in your career is right for you.
Most importantly, I recommend finding a recruiter that you like and then developing a relationship with that person. If that means “interviewing” several recruiters to find one that you enjoy working with; then do it. You want the person that will be assisting you with a potential career move to be a trusted advisor. In order for that to happen, you have to be invested in the relationship. The best recruiters also view their relationships in the long-term and are willing to make an investment in their candidates. I’ve been practicing for almost 27 years and some of my longest relationships are with recruiters that I’ve met over the course of my career and stayed in contact with. The great ones are always available for a call and they are a great resource to have in your “tool kit.” So even after you make a move, if you enjoyed working with this person, stay in touch.
Question: I’m a lateral partner that is considering a move to another law firm. I’ve heard that these firms cannot ask me about my current salary. Is this true? If so, and I decide not to disclose my salary, could that have negative implications?
The majority of states have adopted laws that prohibit employers from requesting salary history information from candidates. For example, California, Illinois, and New York have adopted laws prohibiting employers from asking lateral candidates about their salary history information. Some cities have done the same. Certain states, such as Michigan, allow employers to ask about salary history, but only after a conditional job offer is made to the candidate. A few states prohibit employers from relying on a candidate’s salary information in setting compensation if it is discovered or volunteered. Other states have remained silent on the issue. Therefore, the first consideration is where are you barred and does the state in which you practice have any such type of law.
Then once you understand whether such a law applies in your jurisdiction you must then consider whether refusing this information will negatively impact your lateral process. This is likely one of the most difficult questions to navigate as the reality of the lateral process is that the refusal to disclose at least a salary range may preclude the process from moving forward. The law firm or firms that you are interviewing with need to have at least a range with which they can model your candidacy. Absent any salary information, you may wind up with an offer that is not what you are looking for.
Question: I’m a lateral partner that is in the process of looking for a new position at another law firm. I anticipate receiving several offers at the conclusion of this process, should I share those offers with the other firms.
Offers that law firms provide candidates are in most cases confidential. Firms may send offer letters that explicitly state the offer is to remain confidential or may otherwise express to the candidate that the offer is to remain confidential. Regardless, firms keep offers confidential from the public, competitive law firms, and other attorneys and personnel at the firm. This information is, thus, confidential to both the law firm and to the candidate. Other firms do not have a right to it.
Having said that, have I seen instances where a candidate will tell one law firm what the other firm is offering in the hopes of getting the first law firm to increase its offer. The answer is yes. That does happen. But the better way to handle the situation is to tell the firm that is your first choice that you would need a certain level of compensation in order to accept its offer. That is the best way to negotiate an offer. You should not disclose the name of the other firm or disclose details of the other firm’s offer.
Question: I’m an associate that is looking for a new associate position at another law firm. Will the firm I’m interviewing with ask for my performance reviews or self-evaluations? If so, should I disclose them?
Firms should not be asking you for this type of information. Not only is the usefulness of a candidate’s prior law firm performance reviews questionable, but requesting a candidate’s performance review implicates important concerns that you must be mindful of. First, the content of attorney-performance reviews likely contain confidential and privileged information. For example, the review could include confidential client-specific information related to a transaction or ongoing litigation that you worked on. It may also include attorney-client information, attorney-work product, and proprietary firm strategic plans. For these reasons, many law firms have policies in place requiring that performance reviews are to be treated confidential and should not be shared outside of the firm or even within the firm. Another related consideration is your privacy interest and the privacy interest of the reviewers who likely drafted their reviews of you with the expectation that the reviews will remain private. The same considerations apply to your self-evaluations. Second, the performance reviews are likely your firm’s confidential information; prospective employers should not be asking for the current firm’s confidential information in connection with the lateral process. Simply put, these materials are confidential. The materials also may be privileged depending upon their content, and should not be shared outside your current firm.
You’ve Been Sued: Now What?
Being served with a lawsuit is frustrating, and sometimes nerve-racking, even for seasoned in-house counsel. Having a plan in place to quickly and appropriately address new lawsuits can ease the stress of being sued.
Although no two suits are identical, we provide a checklist of general best practices to follow when your company faces new litigation. These steps will help to ensure critical deadlines are not missed and your company is quickly in the best position to defend itself. While we have focused on federal lawsuits, most states will have similar requirements, albeit with different specifics like differing due dates for specific actions.
Carefully review the complaint and confirm the date of service (and in which Court the complaint was filed).
Contact your registered agent right away to confirm the date the lawsuit was formally served. This will allow you to calculate the response deadline, which typically is 21 days for federal complaints. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). Response deadlines in state court and arbitrations vary.
Be sure to check the Court’s local rules to confirm the response deadline and procedures for ensuring any extension of time to respond.
If opposing counsel asks whether you will waive formal service, the answer generally should be yes. In federal court, waiving service allows a defendant 60 days to respond to the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). If a defendant refuses to waive service, the court may order the defendant to pay the costs of service and attorneys’ fees associated with collecting those costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).
In federal court, waiving service generally waives complaints about defects in service or service of process but not personal jurisdiction, venue, or other grounds for dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(5).
Review the docket to see whether anything beyond the Complaint has been filed.
Sometimes in state court proceedings, courts enter uniform case management orders at the start of an action, which include various deadlines. Review the case’s online docket to determine whether any case management or other orders have been entered.
Implement a document hold and send relevant custodians a preservation notice.
To avoid arguments regarding spoliation of evidence or obstruction of justice, after receipt of a lawsuit, companies immediately should take steps to preserve relevant documents, including electronically-stored information. Work with your IT personnel or vendor to pause all routine document destruction practices and ensure key employees know not to delete or destroy relevant materials, from handwritten notes to ephemeral (e.g., Signal) messages.
Advise recipients that the document hold notice is confidential and remind employees of their ongoing duty of loyalty to the company.
Consider preserving key testimony.
Sometimes, recollections change as time goes on. Consider whether to preserve key testimony via an interview with, or affidavit from, key employees or witnesses.
Notify your insurer.
Promptly notify all insurance carriers that may cover litigation expenses or contribute to a settlement. Failure to timely put insurers on notice of a claim may waive certain rights or even coverage for a claim.
Retain outside counsel and evaluate conflicts.
Promptly retain outside counsel to thoroughly evaluate the complaint and consider next steps in the litigation.
If a company and individual employees were sued, consider with outside counsel whether any employees need counsel separate and apart from the company’s counsel to avoid conflicts of interest. It is easier to address this issue at the outset rather than wait for opposing counsel to file a motion to disqualify, potentially resulting in both the company and employees needing new counsel.
Consider whether you have counterclaims, crossclaims, or third-party claims.
With counsel secured, you should consider whether you may have counterclaims, crossclaims, or claims against third parties. Such claims can be waived if not timely presented. This consideration is particularly pressing if you intend to answer the complaint rather than move to dismiss it, as counterclaims and third-party claims generally must be included with an answer. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a)(1), (g); 19(a); 20(a).
Begin consideration of potential expert witnesses
Early retention of expert witnesses can help focus and guide discovery and, in nuanced fields, helps to ensure opposing counsel does not retain and therefore conflict out all preeminent experts.
Retain experts on a consulting basis early on to protect the privilege. As the case progresses, consider whether to designate the expert or his or her colleague as a testifying expert. Testifying experts are invaluable in breaking down complex concepts for juries – and lawyers!
Facing litigation may seem overwhelming, but considering a thoughtful response to a complaint, getting an early start on preserving and collecting evidence, and avoiding waiving insurance coverage or even claims against others will position your company for success and avoid unnecessary complications or setbacks as the case progresses. Foley is here to help you address the short and long-term impacts in the wake of regulatory changes and litigation concerns. We have the resources to help you navigate these and other important legal considerations related to business operations and industry-specific issues.
How to Sign 300 Cases Per Month with PPC Advertising: Breaking Down the Costs
Scaling your law firm to sign 300 cases per month using law firm PPC advertising is an ambitious goal, and achieving it requires a clear understanding of the financial landscape, especially the cost per click (CPC) and cost per lead (CPL). Personal injury law is one of the most competitive and expensive industries in PPC advertising, which means your strategy—and your budget—needs to be rock solid.
1. The High Cost of PPC Advertising in Personal Injury Law
Personal injury law consistently ranks as one of the most expensive niches in PPC advertising due to intense competition and high case values. Here’s a breakdown of the average costs you can expect:
Cost-Per-Click (CPC): $70 to $250 per click, depending on your location and competition level.
Cost-Per-Lead (CPL): With conversion rates averaging between 10-15%, the cost per lead can range from $700 to $1,500.
Cost-Per-Acquisition (CPA): The cost to acquire one signed case typically falls around $2,500 to $3,000.
These numbers highlight the financial commitment required to compete in this space, especially if you’re targeting lucrative markets with high case values.
2. PPC Advertising Costs: The Numbers Don’t Lie
To sign 300 cases per month, you’ll need to generate approximately 3,000 leads per month at a 10% conversion rate. Here’s what the math looks like:
Monthly PPC Budget: $810,000 (based on a $2,700 CPA)
Leads Required: 3,000 per month
Clicks Required: With a 10% conversion rate, you’ll need approximately 30,000 clicks per month to generate 3,000 leads.
CPC Impact: At an average CPC of $150, those 30,000 clicks could cost up to $4.5 million annually.
This demonstrates why personal injury law firms must have a substantial PPC budget to remain competitive and achieve their goals.
3. Revenue Potential: What’s the ROI?
Despite the high costs, the revenue potential can make PPC advertising a worthwhile investment. Here’s how it plays out:
Average Case Value: $12,500 to $20,000
Monthly Revenue Projections:
At $12,500 per case: 300 cases = $3.75 million/month
At $20,000 per case: 300 cases = $6 million/month
With a well-executed PPC campaign, your law firm could achieve significant returns, but only if you have the operational capacity to handle the influx of leads and cases effectively.
4. Operational Challenges of Scaling with PPC
Generating leads is only half the battle. Managing the resulting workload is the real challenge. Here’s what you need to prepare for:
a. Processing Leads
To manage 3,000 leads per month, you’ll need a highly efficient intake team. Assuming 8-hour shifts and no weekends, your team will need to handle approximately 136 leads per day. This may require:
10-12 full-time intake specialists at ~$50,000 per year = $500,000 to $600,000 annually
b. Converting Leads to Signed Cases
With a 10% conversion rate, your team must process those leads quickly and effectively to sign 300 cases. Delays or inefficiencies at this stage can lead to lost opportunities and wasted ad spend.
c. Managing Cases
Once signed, those 300 cases must be managed through to settlement. This will require:
18 case managers, each handling ~200 cases, at $70,000 to $100,000 annually = $1.26 million to $1.8 million annually
5 attorneys at $200,000 annually = $1 million annually
5. The Importance of Working Capital
Scaling to 300 cases per month requires significant working capital to cover both PPC costs and operational expenses. Here’s what you’ll need to budget for:
PPC Costs: $810,000 per month = $9.72 million annually
Salaries and Overhead: ~$10 million annually
Reserves for Delayed Settlements: 20-25% of total costs = $2-3 million
Total Year 1 Investment: $20-$25 million.
6. The Risks and Costs of Litigation Financing
For many law firms, securing this level of funding involves leveraging litigation financing companies. While this can provide much-needed upfront capital, it comes with significant risks:
a. High Interest Rates
Litigation financing often carries annual interest rates of 18-30%, drastically cutting into your profits.
b. Reduced Profit Margins
If you’re giving up 20-30% of settlements to a financing company, your revenue per case could drop from $20,000 to $14,000 or less.
c. Debt Accumulation
Cases take 9-12 months to settle, meaning interest will continue to accrue while you wait for payouts. This can lead to long-term financial strain.
d. Reputational Concerns
Reliance on litigation financing can harm your firm’s reputation, particularly if clients perceive you as financially unstable.
7. Should Your Law Firm Pursue 300 Cases Per Month?
Achieving this ambitious goal requires more than just a large PPC budget. It demands a strategic approach, robust operational infrastructure, and substantial financial resources. Before committing to this level of scaling, ask yourself:
Do I have the working capital to sustain this growth?
Is my team prepared to handle 3,000 leads and 300 cases per month?
Can I maintain quality of service while scaling?
Am I prepared for the financial risks of litigation financing, if necessary?
If the answer to any of these questions is “no,” consider scaling more gradually or exploring other growth strategies.
300 Cases Per Month: Is Your Law Firm Ready For This Type of Growth?
Scaling your law firm to 300 cases per month using PPC advertising is possible—but it’s not for the faint of heart. With CPCs ranging from $70 to $250 and operational costs matching or exceeding your marketing spend, this strategy requires careful planning and deep pockets. However, for firms with the resources, expertise, and operational readiness, the rewards can be extraordinary.
The Path & The Practice Podcast Episode 120: Akshay Verna, COO (Spotdraft) [Podcast]
This episode of The Path & The Practice features a conversation with special guest Akshay Verma. Akshay is COO at Spotdraft. In this discussion he details a path that began in New Delhi, India. He reflects on a childhood passion for sports and pop culture and details his journey, including his decision to attend UC Berkeley for undergrad, working as a paralegal in big law before attending Santa Clara University School of Law, and then beginning his career as an environmental lawyer. Akshay reflects on pivoting from legal practice to the business side of law, including the years he spent as the head of legal operations a Meta. Akshay reflects on the role of legal operations professionals and gives wonderful advice on the importance of embracing feedback.
Akshay’s Profile:
Title: Chief Operating Officer
Company: Spot Draft
Hometown: San Francisco, CA
College: UC Berkeley
Law School: Santa Clara University School of Law
January 2025 Legal News: Law Firm News and Mergers, Industry Awards and Recognition, DEI and Women in Law
Thank you for reading the National Law Review’s legal news roundup, highlighting the latest law firm news! A new year means new law firm news. Please read below for the latest in law firm news and industry expansion, legal industry awards and recognition, and DEI and women in the legal field.
Law Firm News and Mergers
Jackson Lewis P.C. announced the elevation of 20 attorneys to principal status, including:
Zachary A. Ahonen (Indianapolis)
Lara P. Besser (San Diego)
Sean Bothamley (Silicon Valley)
Brandon U. Campbell (Miami)
Keely J. Collins (Atlanta)
Bernard G. Dennis, III (D.C. Region)
Jessica L. Draper (Hartford)
Kelli M. Dreger (Orange County)
Sayaka Karitani (Los Angeles)
Jonathan R. King (Cleveland)
Andrew D. Kinghorn (St. Louis)
Jina Lee (Orange County)
Karen Luh (Los Angeles)
M. Christopher Moon (Salt Lake City)
Jason A. Ross (Washington D.C. Region)
Carlos J. Saavedra-Gutiérrez (San Juan)
Nicholas A. Simpson (Chicago)
Andrew L. Smith (Los Angeles)
Frank S. Stern (Greenville)
Lauren H. Whiting (Austin)
“We are proud to announce the elevation of our 2025 class of new principals,” said Firm Chair Kevin Lauri. “These individuals have demonstrated exceptional talent, steadfast dedication and a deep commitment to both our clients and the core values that define Jackson Lewis. This is a well-deserved achievement, and we are excited to see the continued leadership and impact each of the principals will bring to the firm in the years ahead.”
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP welcomed its largest first-year class, including 49 associates and two staff attorneys. The class includes:
Atlanta
Kaylee M. Roberts – Litigation Practice Group (Emory University School of Law)
Joseph A. Shafritz – Healthcare Practice Group (Georgia State University College of Law)
Ashley E. Strain – Litigation Practice Group (Emory University School of Law)
Birmingham
Bidushi Adhikari – Litigation Practice Group and Construction Practice Group (Boston University School of Law)
Julianne L. Bayer – Litigation Practice Group (University of Alabama School of Law)
Katelyn Carson – Construction Practice Group (University of Alabama School of Law)
John Darby – Corporate & Securities Practice Group (The George Washington University School of Law)
Edward Gaal – Corporate & Securities Practice Group (Cumberland School of Law at Samford University)
Joshua S. Lewis – Banking & Financial Services Practice Group (Cumberland School of Law at Samford University)
Matthew J. Lloyd – Litigation Practice Group (Washington & Lee University School of Law)
Marlee Tomlinson Martin – Real Estate Practice Group (University of Alabama School of Law)
Daniel S. McCray – Litigation Practice Group (University of Virginia School of Law)
Ashlyn E. Payne –Banking & Financial Services Practice Group (Cumberland School of Law at Samford University)
Brianna Rhymes – Government Enforcement & Investigations Practice Group (Southern University Law Center)
Zachary B. Stewart – Construction Practice Group (University of Alabama School of Law)
Charlotte Udipi – Healthcare Practice Group (Washington University School of Law)
Macy Walters – Litigation Practice Group (University of Mississippi School of Law)
Charlotte
Tamara Boles – Litigation Practice Group (University of Alabama School of Law)
Steven Hix – Litigation Practice Group (University of South Carolina School of Law)
Noah Matthews – Construction Practice Group and Litigation Practice Group (University of Miami School of Law)
Dallas
Lexie Alexander – Litigation Practice Group and Government Enforcement & Investigations Practice Group (Emory University School of Law)
Stephen McCluskey – Litigation Practice Group (University of Texas School of Law)
Taylor E. Scott – Litigation Practice Group (Southern University Law Center)
Houston
Jonathan Adams – Litigation Practice Group (University of Texas School of Law)
Tim Almohamad – Construction Practice Group (University of Texas School of Law)
John “Carter” Byrum – Litigation Practice Group (University of Texas School of Law)
Huntsville
AJ Brien – Corporate & Securities Practice Group (University of Alabama School of Law)
Trevor G. Porter – Corporate & Securities Practice Group (University of Alabama School of Law)
Jackson
Marshall Jones Jr. – Real Estate Practice Group (Mississippi College of Law)
Shelby Parks – Litigation Practice Group (Mississippi College of Law)
Emily C. Stanfield – Litigation Practice Group (Mississippi College of Law)
Preston Garner Vance – Construction Practice Group and Litigation Practice Group (University of Mississippi School of Law)
Nashville
Stephanie Goldfeld – Labor & Employment Practice Group and Litigation Practice Group (University of Tennessee College of Law)
Dawn Jackson – Litigation Practice Group (University of Mississippi School of Law)
Zachary June – Litigation Practice Group (Duke University School of Law)
Nora Klein – Corporate & Securities Practice Group (Belmont University College of Law)
Cole S. Manion – Construction Practice Group (University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law)
Amanda Norman – Litigation Practice Group (George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School)
Carter Oakley – Real Estate Practice Group (University of Tennessee College of Law)
Monica Peacock – Economic Development & Renewable Energy Practice Group (Duke University School of Law)
Elizabeth T. Petras – Litigation Practice Group (Emory University School of Law)
Madison G. Porth – Litigation Practice Group (Vanderbilt University Law School)
Lily Rucker – Labor & Employment Practice Group (Vanderbilt University Law School)
Marlee Sacks – Litigation Practice Group (Emory University School of Law)
Jon Michael Sockwell – Litigation Practice Group and Banking & Financial Services Practice Group (University of Alabama School of Law)
Jaden R. Taylor – Corporate & Securities Practice Group (George Washington University Law School)
Tampa
Justin A. Clark – Corporate & Securities Practice Group (University of Florida Levin College of Law)
Lucie Hunter Fisher – Litigation Practice Group (Washington & Lee University School of Law)
Mary Rosado – Construction Practice Group and Litigation Practice Group (University of Florida Levin College of Law)
Washington, D.C.
Elizabeth A. Brown – Construction Practice Group and Government Contracts Practice Group (University of Alabama School of Law)
Winni Zhang – Construction Practice Group (Washington & Lee University School of Law)
“Each year, one of our firm’s overarching goals continues to be strategic growth and this includes adding talented young attorneys across a variety of practices. This group is no exception as we welcome this historically large class of attorneys across our footprint,” said Bradley Chairman of the Board and Managing Partner Jon Skeeters. “We look forward to working with this accomplished group and are pleased to welcome them to the firm.”
David Vallas joined Honigman LLP’s Chicago office as a partner in the business litigation practice group and litigation department.
Mr. Vallas focuses his over two decades of experience on real estate and commercial matters, representing lenders, developers and REITs in cases involving creditor disputes, commercial foreclosures and municipal compliance.
“With the commercial real estate market expected to bounce back in 2025, businesses will need an experienced litigator who can handle the myriad of complex legal challenges that may arise,” said J. Michael Huget, Chair of Honigman’s Litigation Department. “David consistently delivers solutions that align not only with his client’s strategic objectives, but the evolving demands of today’s dynamic market. We’re thrilled to bring him on board.”
Legal Industry Awards and Recognition
Proskauer Rose LLP announced that Brian Schwartz, partner in the firm’s private funds group, was named to the 2025 Rising Stars list by Venture Capital Journal. The list features limited partners, founders, investors and advisors who are under the age of 40 and have made their mark on the industry.
Mr. Schwartz represents private fund sponsors in different fund strategies, including venture capital, growth equity and buyout funds. His practice focuses on structuring, organizing, marketing and negotiating Private investment funds through all aspects of the fundraising process.
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP announced that Boca Raton partner Rusty Melges was selected for the Urban Land Institute’s 2025 Leadership Institute Cohort. He will join 35 other professionals to learn tools and insights to tackle the most urgent real estate and land use challenges in South Florida.
Mr. Melges focuses his practice on representing clients in real estate transactions involving the acquisition, financing, repositioning, development and leasing of office, commercial and mixed-use projects. In addition, he also regularly represents financial institutions in the mergers and acquisiton area as well as third-party risk management and corporate governance.
Moore & Van Allen PLLC announced that members Bill Zimmern and Rob Rust were added as leadership of the firm’s corporate team. They join members Billy Moore and Joe Fernandez.
Mr. Zimmern assists his clients with securities and general corporate matters, who come from a range of industries including information technology, financial services, healthcare, industrial and business services, real estate and retail. In addition, he provides advice on merger and acquisition transactions that is practical and business oriented.
Mr. Rust represents clients in transactional matters including commercial contract work, mergers and acquisitions, and joint ventures. His scope of representation encompasses complex domestic matters and significant cross-border transactions.
DEI and Women in Law
Womble Bond Dickinson LLP achieved a perfect score of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s 2025 Corporate Equality Index (CEI) for the tenth consecutive year. The tool highlights US company promotion of LGBTQ+ friendly workplace policies nationally and abroad.
The CEI looks at criteria under four pillars; business entity non-discrimination policies, equitable benefits for LGBTQ+ workers and their families, inclusive culture support and corporate social responsibility.
“As we celebrate this milestone, we remain dedicated to continuous improvement, within our own Womble community and in the community at large,” said Christine Xiao, co-chair of the firm’s LGBTQ+ affinity group, WBDPride.
Kimberly Smith, partner and global chair of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP’s corporate department, was featured by by Mergers & Acquisitions as one of the 2025 Most Influential Women in Mid-Market M&A for the fifth consecutive year.
The list features women for their ability to foster innovation, dealmaking achievements, and impact within the larger landscape of mergers and acquisitions (M&A).
Ms. Smith leads complex M&A for family offices and PE funds, as well as handling leveraged buyouts, joint ventures and acquisitions. As the corporate department global chair, Ms. Smith leads over 150 lawyers in the United States, the United Kingdom and China. She oversees strategic areas such as M&A, capital markets, private equity and health care transactions.
Venable LLP announced that partner Elizabeth Manno was elected to the board of directors of the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) for a three-year term. The organization’s goal is to provide resources to advance women in the legal profession, as well as advocate for the equality of women.
Ms. Manno served as co-chair of the NAWL’s Research Committee from 2019 to 2025 and the chair of NAWL’s Denver conference in 2019. She was awarded with NAWL’s Virginia S. Mueller Outstanding Member Award in 2019.
“We are thrilled to welcome Elizabeth to NAWL’s Board of Directors. Her extensive experience and proven leadership will be invaluable as we continue to promote our mission to advance women in the legal profession and advocate for the equality of women under the law,” said NAWL’s executive director, Karen Richardson. “We look forward to her insights and contributions as we work together to achieve our strategic goals.”
Ms. Manno focuses her practice on technology disputes such as licensing, patent infringement and other IP litigation. She represents clients from a wide range of technological fields including GPS, semiconductors, wireless devices, media streaming and artificial intelligence.
Strive Without Strife: Your Guide to 2025
Embrace Sustainable Goals. The start of a new year often inspires lofty resolutions, if not illusions of grandeur, about the habits we’ll develop and professional goals we’ll conquer: more billable hours, bigger matters, rapid career advancement, and the like. Yet, by mid- to late-January — right about now — many attorneys find themselves buried under the weight of their ambitious goals and the pressure to consistently deliver at a high level, reverting to old patterns and familiar routines as overextension and burnout loom. The truth is, we don’t transform overnight. Instead of chasing grandiose, unrealistic resolutions that can lead to frustration or feelings of failure, inadequacy, or self-doubt when we fall short, what if we entered 2025 with a focus on embracing sustainable goals — a way to hit our stride and strive without the strife?
Some might argue that the legal profession, with its high demands and rigorous pace, leaves little room for sustainable practices. However, embracing sustainability as an integral part of our goal setting allows us to strive toward our aspirations in a way that’s achievable and meaningful and sets us up for steadier, more fulfilling progress. While the world at large may be heavily biased toward quick fixes and sweeping changes, reams of habit change literature support the ideas that consistency, small and sustainable habits, and incremental progress are fundamental to achieving long-term growth.
Practice ESG by Applying ESG. The concept of sustainability isn’t new. While the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework may be rooted in the corporate world, it can also inform how attorneys can practice embracing sustainable goals to achieve success and career longevity. Instead of initiating a complete overhaul of everything at once, focusing on implementing a few small habits or changes consistently within any of the ESG pillars can help sustain progress toward your goals.
Environmental: Our environment, both physical and operational, plays a crucial role in our productivity and focus. A cluttered or chaotic workspace or disorganized workflow can increase stress and overwhelm, deplete energy, and sink motivation. By intentionally structuring a supportive environment, attorneys can minimize distractions; maximize their focus and energy; and manage multiple matters, client communications, and competing deadlines without feeling constantly overwhelmed.
If your goal is to increase efficiency and productivity, consider introducing a small design change into your workspace or workflows, such as:
Decluttering your inbox or desk so you can access key communications or documents more quickly.
Scheduling meetings for 45 minutes instead of 60 so you have time to debrief and prepare in between “back-to-back” meetings.
Writing your to-do list in one place (whether in a physical or digital notebook) instead of on multiple sticky notes.
Turning off the sound that alerts you to new email messages so you’re not constantly task-switching.
Placing your phone somewhere other than your nightstand before bed so you’re not tempted to stay up and scroll aimlessly.
Social: The legal industry thrives on strong relationships at every stage — whether with clients, colleagues, or mentors. Investing time to develop these connections can result in support, guidance, and collaboration opportunities that align with your long-term goals and help you maintain a sustainable pace. However, the kitchen-sink approach of joining every organization, attending every networking event, and reaching out to every contact is a waste of time and leaves you with many surface-level connections.
If your goal is to strengthen your professional network, consider implementing manageable habits intended to build meaningful relationships over time, such as:
Scheduling a recurring time each week to reach out to 1-2 professional contacts, which could be a simple email, a LinkedIn message, or invitation to catch up.
Participating in more focused group activities, such as volunteering for a committee within your firm or a professional organization or attending a small roundtable discussion.
Proactively checking in and seeking guidance from a mentor (formal or informal) every quarter.
Setting aside 15 minutes per week to meaningfully comment on posts or share relevant thought leadership on LinkedIn.
Governance: Arguably the most important pillar of the framework, governance anchors the habits cultivated under the other two pillars to ensure that they are aligned with your overarching goals and values. Your internal governance includes the processes and systems by which you regulate your thoughts and emotions, make intentional decisions, prioritize effectively, and hold yourself accountable. Without robust internal governance to keep you grounded in a high-pressure and fast-paced environment, your efforts risk becoming scattered or misaligned with your goals, leaving you overextended and dissatisfied.
To bolster your internal governance, consider incorporating practices at a regular cadence, such as:
Reflecting on your personal and professional goals.
Breaking down larger objectives into manageable steps.
Celebrating small wins.
Writing down or labeling your thoughts and emotions.
Implementing accountability systems through reminders, progress reviews, or peer check-ins.
By embracing an ESG mindset to foster positive change, attorneys can design a career path that harmonizes ambition with sustainability, ensuring growth that lasts well beyond January.
Change Management: How to Finesse Law Firm Adoption of Generative AI
Law firms today face a turning point. Clients demand more efficient, cost-effective services; younger associates are eager to leverage the latest technologies for legal tasks; and partners try to reconcile tradition with agility in a highly competitive marketplace. Generative artificial intelligence (AI), known for its capacity to produce novel content and insights, has emerged as a solution that promises better efficiency, improved work quality, and a real opportunity to differentiate the firm in the marketplace. Still, the question remains:
How can a law firm help its attorneys and staff to embrace AI while safeguarding the trust, ethical integrity, and traditional practices that lie at the heart of legal work?
Andrew Ng’s AI Transformation Playbook offers a valuable framework for introducing AI in ways that minimize risk and maximize organizational acceptance. Adopting these principles in a law-firm setting involves balancing the profession’s deep-seated practices with the potential of AI. From addressing cultural resistance to crafting a solid technical foundation, a thoughtful change-management plan is necessary for a sustainable and successful transition.
Overcoming Skepticism Through Pilot Projects
Law firms, governed by partnership models and a respect for precedent, tend to approach innovation cautiously. Partners who built their careers through meticulous research may worry that machine-generated insights compromise rigor and reliability. Associates might fear an AI-driven erosion of the apprenticeship model, wondering if their role will shrink as technology automates certain tasks. Concerns also loom regarding the firm’s reputation if clients suspect crucial responsibilities are being delegated to a mysterious black box.
The most direct method of quelling these doubts is to show proof of concept. Andrew Ng’s approach suggests starting with small, well-defined projects before scaling firm-wide. This tactic acknowledges that, with each successful pilot, more people become comfortable with technology that once felt like a threat. By methodically testing AI in narrower use cases, the firm ensures data security and strict confidentiality protocols remain intact. Early wins become the foundation for broader adoption.
Pilot projects help transform abstract AI potential into tangible benefits. For example, using AI to produce first drafts of nondisclosure agreements. Attorneys then refine these drafts, focusing on subtle nuances rather than repetitive details. Another natural entry point is e-discovery, where AI can sift through thousands of documents to categorize and surface relevant information more efficiently than human-only reviews. Each of these use cases is a manageable experiment. If AI truly delivers faster turnaround times and maintains accuracy, it provides evidence that can persuade skeptical stakeholders. Pilots also offer an opportunity to identify challenges, such as user training gaps or hiccups in data management, on a small scale before the technology is rolled out more broadly.
Creating a Dedicated AI Team
One of the first steps is assembling a cross-functional leadership group that aligns AI initiatives with overarching business objectives. This team typically includes partners who can advocate for AI at leadership levels, associates immersed in daily work processes, IT professionals responsible for infrastructure and cybersecurity, and compliance officers ensuring adherence to ethical mandates.
In large firms, a Chief AI Officer or Director of Legal Innovation may coordinate these efforts. In smaller firms, a few technology-minded attorneys might share multiple roles. The key is that this group does more than evaluate software. It crafts data governance policies, designs training programs, secures necessary budgets, and proactively tackles any ethical, reputational, or practical concerns that arise when introducing a technology as potentially disruptive as AI.
Training as the Core of Transformation
AI has limited value if the firm’s workforce does not know how to wield it effectively. Training must go beyond simple “tech demos,” offering interactive sessions in which legal professionals can apply AI tools to realistic tasks. For example, attorneys may practice using the system to draft a client memo or summarize case law. These hands-on experiences remove the mystique surrounding AI, giving participants a concrete understanding of its capabilities and boundaries.
Lawyers also need guidelines for verifying the AI’s output. Legally binding documents or briefs cannot be signed off without sufficient human oversight. For that reason, law firms often designate a “review attorney” role in the AI workflow, ensuring that each AI-generated product passes through a person who confirms it meets the firm’s rigorous standards. Partners benefit from shorter, strategically focused sessions that highlight how AI can influence client satisfaction, create new revenue streams, or boost efficiency in critical operations.
Developing a Coherent AI Strategy
Once the firm achieves early successes with pilot programs and begins to see a measurable return on smaller AI projects, it is time to formulate a broader vision. This strategic blueprint should identify the highest-value areas for further application of AI, whether it involves automating client intake, deploying predictive analytics for litigation, or streamlining contract drafting at scale. The key is to match AI initiatives with the firm’s core goals—boosting client satisfaction, refining operational efficiency, and ultimately reinforcing its reputation for accurate, ethical service.
But the firm’s AI strategy should never become a static directive. It must grow with the firm’s internal expertise, adjusting to real-world results, regulatory changes, and emerging AI capabilities. By regularly re-evaluating milestones and expected outcomes, the firm ensures its AI investments remain both relevant and impactful in serving clients’ evolving needs.
Communicating to Foster Trust and Transparency
Change management thrives on dialogue. Andrew Ng’s playbook underscores the importance of transparent communication, especially in fields sensitive to reputational risk. Law firms can apply this principle by hosting informal gatherings where early adopters share their experiences—both positive and negative. These stories have a dual effect: they highlight successes that validate the technology, and they candidly address difficulties to keep expectations realistic.
Newsletters, lunch-and-learns, and internal portals all help disseminate updates and insights across different practice areas. Firms that operate multiple offices often hold virtual town halls, ensuring that attorneys and support staff everywhere can stay informed. Externally, clarity matters too. Clients who understand that a firm is leveraging AI to improve speed and accuracy (while retaining key ethical safeguards) are more likely to view the decision as innovative rather than risky.
Closing Thoughts
AI holds remarkable promise for law firms, but its full value emerges only through conscientious change management, which hinges on a delicate balance of diverse personalities. Nothing succeeds like success. By implementing small pilot projects, assembling an AI leadership team, focusing on thorough training, crafting a compelling business strategy, and clearly communicating its vision, a law firm can mitigate risks and harness AI’s transformative power.
The best outcomes result not from viewing AI as a magical shortcut, but from recognizing it as a partner that handles repetitive tasks and surfaces insights more swiftly than humans alone. This frees lawyers to direct their intellect and creativity toward high-level endeavors that deepen client relationships, identify new opportunities, and advance compelling arguments. When fused with a commitment to the highest professional and ethical standards, AI can become a catalyst for a dynamic and fruitful future—one where law firms deliver better service, operate more efficiently, and remain steadfastly true to their professional roots.
Strategic Capacity Planning for Aging Founder-Owned Law Firms
Importance of Capacity Planning for Aging Law Firms
Transition planning is crucial for law firms, especially as many equity partners and founders near retirement age. Proactive capacity planning, a key aspect of this process, ensures that the skills and billable contributions are successfully replaced. Evaluating factors such as age, experience, unique skill sets, and billable contributions establishes a strong foundation for meeting future needs.
Strategic staffing methods that align case assignments with skill development and client transition goals help firms maintain high client service and competitiveness levels.
However, this strategy carries several risks, including financial implications, potential productivity impacts, and challenges in achieving training objectives. Despite these risks, firms prioritizing proactive staffing and capacity management significantly enhance their position for long-term viability and success.
Key Factors in Capacity Planning
Comprehensive capacity planning should address the following factors:
Age and retirement timeline
Experience
Billable contributions
Skill development needs
Marketing contributions
Bar and professional contributions
Recruiting support
Administrative contributions
These analyses are conducted as necessary at various levels within the firm, such as by section, practice, or strategic grouping. They can also be categorized by client team or specific skill sets, such as trial experience.
While capacity planning is generally cost-effective, addressing the weaknesses identified during these analyses typically comes at a cost. For example, hiring before the need to allow time for training can run into six figures during the ramp-up period.
Benefits and Risks of Capacity Management
Several benefits and risks come with this approach to capability and capacity management, including:
BENEFITS
RISKS
Facilitates effective transition planning;
Reduces the risk of turnover;
Enhances the competitiveness of the firm;
Fosters a culture of healthy competition attorneys;
Maintains high client service levels; and
Maximizes profitability when work surges.
Financial risk due to upfront investments;
The possibility of hires not working out;
Excess capacity impacting the productivity of others;
Training objectives not achieved;
Client’s reluctance to cooperate in transitions;
Potential compensation implications; and
Frustration among partners who do not directly benefit.
Advanced Staffing for Transition Readiness
Advanced staffing – hiring and reallocating resources before demand peaks – is key for transition readiness. Strategic staffing aligns case assignments with skill development or client objectives. For example:
Providing trial experience to a senior associate or
Involving a successor lawyer in key client relationships
However, immediate workload imbalances often disrupt this approach, prioritizing immediate needs over long-term goals. This can lead to underprepared lawyers, weak transitions, increased costs, and HR challenges.
Actionable Recommendations
To strengthen transition readiness, firms should:
Conduct Regular Capacity Audits: Periodically review skill gaps, billable contributions, and future staffing needs.
Utilize Data Analytics: Leverage tools to predict workload changes and inform resource allocation.
Establish Mentorship Programs: Pair retiring attorneys with successors to facilitate knowledge transfer.
Align Training with Strategic Goals: Develop tailored training plans prioritizing future leadership and skill development.
Monitor Transition Progress: Use measurable benchmarks to meet goals effectively.
Balancing Strategic Foresight and Practical Adaptability
Effective capability and capacity management requires a delicate balance between strategic foresight and practical adaptability. By leveraging tools like equity owner compensation systems and retirement timelines, firms and carefully weighing the benefits and risks, firms can:
Optimize resources
Ensure high client service levels and
Firms can secure their future success and confidently manage transitions by embracing proactive capacity planning and staffing strategies.