Cybernetic Teammate: A Practical Playbook for Harnessing Generative AI for Your Law Firm
Can generative AI function not merely as a tool but as a genuine teammate? This question was answered in a recently published Harvard Business School working paper1, led by researchers from HBS, Procter & Gamble, and The Wharton School, including Professor Ethan Mollick, among others.
The key results were striking. In a large-scale experiment with 776 professionals at Procter & Gamble (P&G), AI-assisted individuals performed at a level comparable to two-person teams without AI. Moreover, AI seemed to “bridge silos,” helping participants produce solutions outside their usual domain of expertise, and it also had a surprisingly positive impact on users’ emotional experience. These findings suggest that generative AI may transform how professionals collaborate, share expertise, and innovate.
In this article, I distill the core insights from the study, then explore how these lessons might be generalized for the legal sector. Finally, I propose an actionable roadmap for law firm partners. At a time when legal services are becoming ever more specialized, these findings offer a glimpse into how AI can help lawyers accelerate research, navigate complexity, and even increase overall job satisfaction.
Key Lessons from the Study
AI as a Substitute for Team Collaboration. Traditionally, P&G employees work in small cross-functional teams (e.g., pairing R&D with Commercial) to develop new product ideas. This environment mirrors law firms’ multi-practice teams, which often bring together litigators, transactional attorneys, compliance specialists, and more. In the experiment, individuals with AI support produced outputs whose quality matched that of two-person teams without AI. Put plainly, AI replaced part of the collaborative “benefit” that usually arises when more than one human is involved. Although human teamwork still has intrinsic value, the study showed that GenAI could function much like a teammate, an ever-present collaborator available on demand.
AI as a Knowledge and Expertise “Equalizer.” The paper also found that AI helped non-specialists produce specialized solutions. For instance, professionals lacking R&D experience still performed at high levels when aided by GenAI. Equally striking, the AI encouraged more balanced thinking: R&D employees generated commercial-focused proposals just as frequently as Commercial employees did, and vice versa. AI effectively bridged domain gaps. For law firms, a similar dynamic may be at play. Young associates, or attorneys venturing beyond their typical focus areas, may leverage GenAI to expand their range: drafting, refining, or ideating on topics outside their usual “comfort zone.”
Emotional and Motivational Boost. Contrary to common fears that technology can depersonalize work, participants using AI reported significantly higher positive emotions (e.g., enthusiasm, energy) and fewer negative emotions (e.g., frustration). The interactive nature of large language models (LLMs) may explain why. Simply put, workers felt more supported and less isolated. For the legal profession, where high stress and burnout are all too familiar, this aspect may hold particular promise. If AI can absorb some of the more routine or painstaking aspects of legal work, attorneys may feel more energized to handle the complex, human-centric tasks that truly require their expertise.
Why This Matters for Law Firms
Law firms today confront a complex blend of client demands, rapid regulatory changes, and cost pressures. Major client matters often require specialized skill sets across multiple legal domains: mergers and acquisitions, IP, antitrust, data privacy, environmental law, and so forth. Teams spend countless hours coordinating each piece of the puzzle. Moreover, the business side of law, marketing, client development, and knowledge management, often runs in parallel silos. In many firms, partners and practice leaders lament that cross-practice synergy does not happen as seamlessly as they would like.
The P&G study signals that GenAI can potentially step in as a “universal collaborator.” Instead of simply churning out boilerplate text, AI can:
Offer real-time expertise: Summarize new legislation, check case law, or offer multiple lines of argument as an “always-on collaborator.”
Enhance cross-practice synergy: Encourage a more balanced approach by exposing attorneys to perspectives outside their usual specialty.
Streamline work, reduce stress: Save hours of routine drafting or research and “hand off” partial tasks to the AI, freeing attorneys to focus on higher-level strategy or client engagement.
From Theory to Action: A Playbook for Law Firm Partners
Great insights, but how to put them into practice? Below is a suggested roadmap, based on the study’s findings, for law firms looking to integrate AI into their practice in a way that enhances teamwork, expertise, and job satisfaction.
Start Small: Pilot AI in a Targeted Practice Group. Begin by running a carefully designed pilot in a discrete practice area, say, corporate or litigation support, where tasks are high-volume and somewhat repeatable (e.g., drafting standard agreements, initial research, or summarizing depositions).
Assign an AI “Champion”: Choose a partner (or senior associate) who believes in the potential of AI and can serve as the go-to resource.
Define “Success” Metrics: For instance, measure (1) average time saved, (2) quality of deliverables, and (3) user satisfaction.
Redesign Workflows to Treat AI as a Team Member
If the P&G experiment is any indication, GenAI can step into roles traditionally filled by junior attorneys or paralegals. That doesn’t mean replacing people; rather, it means reshaping how tasks are allocated or how their job duties are defined.
Task Decomposition: Break down legal work into smaller chunks. Let AI handle discrete elements (e.g., searching for relevant cases, generating multiple versions of a clause).
Iteration & Review: Humans add the final legal judgment and personal expertise. As the study showed, the best outputs came from iterative, back-and-forth engagement with AI.
Invest in Prompt Crafting and AI Training
Those who benefited the most from AI in the P&G study were those who engaged iteratively. “Ask AI a question, incorporate its feedback, refine the prompt, and ask again.” This is a skill that can be honed.
Workshops and Templates: Provide attorneys with example prompts for different tasks: brief writing, interrogatories, contract drafting, client memos.
Build Confidence & Caution: Encourage lawyers to double-check references, confirm sources, and use AI outputs as a springboard rather than a final answer.
Foster an “AI + Human” Culture to Bridge Silos
The study’s participants found that AI broadened their horizons, making them more comfortable addressing topics beyond their functional expertise. Law firms can build on this by designing cross-practice “collaboration labs.”
Virtual Collaboration Sprints: Pair attorneys from different specialties, equip them with AI, and let them co-develop novel solutions, for instance, a “privacy + employment” approach to compliance.
Sharing Success Stories: Publicize how AI helped cross-practice collaboration, for example, a corporate lawyer who used AI to weigh in on IP issues or a litigator who used AI to refine transactional language. This normalizes cross-practice learning.
Monitor Emotional Engagement
One of the study’s most surprising findings is that AI can actually increase enthusiasm and decrease frustration. Law firm leadership might consider adding a short “emotional check-in” to pilot programs or post-project reviews.
Simple Pulse Surveys: Ask attorneys whether AI tools eased or exacerbated stress.
Emphasize Mentoring: If junior lawyers feel more energized using AI, ensure the firm invests that extra energy into training, professional development, and mentorship, rather than merely piling on more work.
Plan for Ethical and Risk Mitigation
Finally, as attorneys well know, legal practice demands rigorous adherence to client confidentiality, privilege, and ethical guidelines. Incorporate the following safeguards:
Confidentiality Protocols: Ensure AI platforms are approved, secure, and configured to avoid inadvertent disclosure of client data.
Transparent Boundaries: Partners should clarify how AI was used in drafting or research, especially for documents shared externally.
Ongoing Supervision: Even the best AI can produce flawed or “hallucinated” references. A structured quality-control protocol is essential for accuracy and ethical compliance.
Closing Thoughts
The Cybernetic Teammate study offers an eye-opening glimpse of how AI might reshape legal work. While lawyers have long relied on collaboration (juniors, seniors, experts, paralegals, librarians, and more) this new research suggests that generative AI can serve as a flexible, on-demand collaborator.
Far from merely automating tasks, AI’s language-based interface can stimulate creativity, bridge silos, and encourage greater engagement. In a legal world where time and expertise are invaluable, the potential to standardize routine tasks, extend specialized knowledge, and reduce stress is profound.
Yet, the lawyers and the firms that stand to gain the most from generative AI will be those that treat it as a genuine teammate. That means investing in prompt-crafting skills, rethinking staffing structures, systematically incorporating AI into everyday workflows, and ensuring ethical guardrails. By combining the best of human judgment with the scale and speed of AI, law firms can position themselves at the vanguard of modern legal practice.
In short, the arrival of the “cybernetic teammate” points not just to incremental improvement but to a chance for genuine transformation. As the study shows, AI may not only amplify the business side of law firms but also improve the experience of practicing attorneys. Done right, it can help create a culture of continuous learning, broader expertise, and higher-impact client service, creating a win-win-win: benefiting partners, associates, and clients alike.
1Dell’Acqua, Fabrizio, Charles Ayoubi, Hila Lifshitz, Raffaella Sadun, Ethan Mollick, Lilach Mollick, Yi Han, Jeff Goldman, Hari Nair, Stew Taub, and Karim R. Lakhani. “The Cybernetic Teammate: A Field Experiment on Generative AI Reshaping Teamwork and Expertise.” Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 25-043, March 2025.
Driving AI Adoption at Top Law Firms: Candid Insights from Innovation Leaders
In an industry known for tradition and caution, generative AI is rapidly transforming the legal profession. While the promise of great efficiency is compelling, concerns around AI ethics, data security, billable hours, and hallucinations persist across many law firms. This tension between innovation and resistance is playing out in real-time—and at the center of it are Chief Innovation Officers and Chief Information Officers, tasked with guiding law firms through this fast-evolving landscape.
These innovation leaders are responsible for evaluating the risks and benefits of new technology, deciding which tools are worth exploring, testing, and potentially deploying to attorneys across a firm.
It’s no small feat.
They must align innovation strategy with firm economics, coordinate closely with leadership, assess use cases at both the firmwide and practice-group levels, evaluate vendor offerings and security protocols, manage pilot programs, obtain attorney buy-in, and help assess ROI.
To better understand the internal dynamics behind AI adoption at some of the top law firms, we spoke directly with innovation leaders from Blank Rome LLP, Fisher Phillips LLP, Honigman LLP, and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.
At Blank Rome LLP, AI was a central focus at the firm’s most recent partner retreat, according to Chief Innovation & Value Officer Ashton Batchelor and Chief Information Officer Frank Spadafino. Attorneys had the opportunity to experiment with AI tools in a low-stakes environment and heard directly from the founder of a leading generative AI platform.
Blank Rome also operates an internal Innovation Lab dedicated to evaluating generative AI tools. Last year, the Lab conducted pilot programs with four AI tools, enlisting 250 of its attorneys in the process. The firm continues to reinforce education and adoption through initiatives like “AI Saturdays,” practice-group-specific AI meetings, and private AI learning sessions.
Fisher Phillips has long been on the cutting-edge of AI testing and adoption. According to Evan Shenkman, the firm’s Chief Knowledge and Innovation Officer, Fisher Phillips was involved in the early design and testing of CoCounsel and became its first law firm customer. The firm also holds the distinction of being the first law firm client for both Hebbia and Trellis AI.
But the journey from vendor pitch to firmwide deployment is far from simple. It’s a deliberate, strategic process requiring deep use-case analysis, internal buy-in, security vetting, robust pilot testing, and thoughtful implementation.
Esther Bowers, Chief Practice Innovation Officer at Honigman LLP, noted that not all pilots make it through that process. “The pilots that succeed,” she explained, “are the ones backed by strong change management, clear communication about the ‘why,’ and use cases that are firmly rooted in how lawyers actually work.”
For Bowers, successful adoption doesn’t come from a single announcement. “Attorneys often need to hear about something seven times before it sticks,” she said, emphasizing the importance of clear, consistent messaging delivered across multiple channels.
Andrew Johnson, Chief Information Officer at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, highlighted the importance of close collaboration between AI innovation teams and practice group leadership. Timing, he added, is also a critical factor. “A vendor may have an outstanding product or service,” Johnson remarked, “but it may just be the wrong time for the firm.”
Shenkman added that the most important factor is simple: “The absolute most important thing is to have a great GenAI tool that adds a ton of value, and is easy to use.”
When asked what advice they would give legal tech vendors, these innovation leaders were candid: do your homework—and respect the process.
Blank Rome’s Batchelor and Spadafino noted that “broad solicitations” and direct pitches to attorneys are “rarely effective.” The most successful vendors, they emphasized, are those who “respect the procurement and onboarding process,” making it easier for the innovation team to properly evaluate the tool.
Bowers of Honigman LLP echoed this sentiment, expressing a desire for legal tech vendors to invest more time in understanding the firm’s internal procurement procedures, decision-making dynamics, and key stakeholders.
But even a deep understanding of firm dynamics isn’t enough if a vendor cannot meet essential security and governance standards. Shenkman of Fisher Phillips was direct: failure to meet those requirements is a dealbreaker. “We can’t proceed—and most law firms won’t either,” he stated.
The insights below provide a rare window into how law firm innovation leaders are driving change and navigating the real-world challenges of AI adoption in the legal industry:
What is your firm’s current approach to adopting AI? Are there any specific tools or use cases you’re most excited about?
Andrew Johnson, Chief Information Officer @ Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Similar to others, we are interested in automating rote, low-risk tasks while freeing attorneys and policy professionals to work on more high-level client issues. The perception of value and the relative risk and reward of AI is not fixed across the industry, however, so we encourage dialogue with clients.
Esther Bowers, Chief Practice Innovation Officer @ Honigman LLP
Our firm takes a phased, practice-informed approach to adopting AI, recognizing that groups have different needs and are at varying levels of readiness—from those that have systematized AI into their workflows to others just beginning to explore its potential. We’re supporting all practices with training, governance, and strategic guidance to ensure responsible and meaningful adoption.
What excites us most isn’t a single tool, but the evolution toward agentic AI—systems that can reason, automate complex legal tasks, and eventually work proactively within the flow of legal work. We’re already seeing promising use cases in contract review, redlining, and approval routing, where AI can replicate demonstrated processes without coding or complicated setup. This is an inflection point where thoughtful integration of AI has the potential to reshape not just efficiency, but the entire model of legal service delivery.
Ashton Batchelor, Chief Innovation & Value Officer @ Blank Rome LLP | Frank Spadafino, Chief Information Officer @ Blank Rome LLP
Blank Rome’s AI adoption is driven by strong collaboration between business teams and attorneys, focusing on maximizing client value and optimizing operations in a responsible and scalable way. Last year, the firm’s Innovation Lab focused exclusively on evaluation of generative AI. The Lab vetted leading AI applications for law firms through four large-scale pilots involving over 250 lawyers and business professionals, focused on defining use cases and putting the capabilities of each application to the test. The pilots succeeded due to a use-case-first approach, empowering attorneys to integrate AI practically into their practices. Following the pilots, the firm adopted three AI technologies for long-term study and workflow integration. As we enter the next phase, we look forward to evolving from prompt-based AI interactions to advanced workflow integration through agentic AI and creation of practice-specific playbooks.
Evan Shenkman, Chief Knowledge and Innovation Officer @ Fisher Phillips
Since late 2022, our firm has been committed to leveraging GenAI to deliver higher-quality legal work more efficiently for our clients. We moved quickly—not only to get our attorneys directly engaged with the technology, but also to help shape the responsible development of leading GenAI tools. We collaborated with Casetext to help design and test CoCounsel, and became the first firm in the world to deploy it. We then became the first law firm customer of both Hebbia and TrellisAI, as well as a design partner and first customer of Verbit’s GenAI-powered LegalVisor. With over two years of hands-on experience designing and applying GenAI in legal practice, our approach remains the same: keep our attorneys at the forefront of innovation, partner with vendors to help deploy the best new products, and turn that advantage into smarter, faster, and more effective service for our clients.
When evaluating AI tools, what criteria matter most to your team?
Andrew Johnson, Chief Information Officer @ Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
The questions we must answer affirmatively before adopting any tool are: 1) Based on the sensitivity of the data processed by this tool, do we trust the related security controls? 2) Do we understand how the tool works and can we conceive of appropriate steps to monitor accuracy and completeness? 3) Can we articulate the benefits of this tool to internal and external stakeholders?
Esther Bowers, Chief Practice Innovation Officer @ Honigman LLP
The top criteria that tend to matter most to our firm include: 1) platform security and maintaining the integrity of our client’s data, which is paramount in any legal technology decision; 2) whether the AI has been trained on legal precedents and grounded in case law to minimize the risk of hallucinations and ensure reliable outputs; 3) the ability to demonstrate a clear business case for procurement, showing how the tool will drive efficiency, support better outcomes, and deliver measurable value to the practice and our clients; and 4) ease of use and low barriers to adoption—specifically, how intuitive the interface is and whether the tool can integrate seamlessly into existing workflows and platforms. We look for solutions that not only meet our technical and ethical standards but also support practical, real-world use by our lawyers and teams.
Ashton Batchelor, Chief Innovation & Value Officer @ Blank Rome LLP | Frank Spadafino, Chief Information Officer @ Blank Rome LLP
AI applications must create measurable value to our attorneys and clients by streamlining processes or improving outcomes. We do not pursue new technology solely for its own sake. Blank Rome has an established and carefully considered technology strategic plan, selecting best-in-class applications for our attorneys and business professionals. Synergies between applications amplify benefits and reduce friction, so we focus on AI tools that complement our existing applications and can benefit from close integrations. Finally, given the rapid pace of AI advancement, we look for vendors that will partner and collaborate with us, helping drive adoption and considering our input for their roadmap and future direction.
Evan Shenkman, Chief Knowledge and Innovation Officer @ Fisher Phillips
When evaluating new GenAI tools, the most important criteria to me are: (1) functionality – does the tool align with our business needs and use cases; (2) security – does it comply with our firm’s data protection, governance, and regulatory standards; (3) value – what is the total cost of ownership, and does the return justify the investment; (4) differentiation – is the tool built on proprietary content or capabilities that are difficult to replicate, rather than being just a basic GPT wrapper; and (5) stability – is the vendor trustworthy, and committed to the long-term support of the product.
What are your top lessons or best practices for successfully selecting and implementing AI tools within a law firm environment?
Andrew Johnson, Chief Information Officer @ Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Attorneys and law firms are typically risk averse. AI is disruptive. It’s not an easy marriage. Beginning the journey at the most basic level, building up institutional awareness and trust, is essential. The next step is partnering with tech adept and innovative personalities to find discreet use cases and demonstrate success, while showcasing how related risks can be identified and managed. This creates momentum for more opportunities.
Esther Bowers, Chief Practice Innovation Officer @ Honigman LLP
For us, successful AI adoption really starts with attorney leadership—teams identifying needs in their practice, spotting client-facing opportunities, and thinking through how AI can solve real problems or make work better for their people. We’ve found that a hands-on, well-structured pilot makes all the difference: feedback is collected in multiple ways, shared across participants, and creates a sense of community and momentum. The pilots that stick are the ones with strong change management, clear communication around the “why,” and use cases that are actually grounded in the way lawyers work. At the end of the day, tech alone doesn’t drive success—it’s the people, process, and willingness to lean in. And just as important, we look for vendors who act like true partners—invested in our success, not just in selling us something.
Ashton Batchelor, Chief Innovation & Value Officer @ Blank Rome LLP | Frank Spadafino, Chief Information Officer @ Blank Rome LLP
You need an experienced team at the table, bringing a broad spectrum of attorneys and business professionals. Making decisions about AI tools in isolation by individual departments is a recipe for failure. Blank Rome’s deeply ingrained culture of collaboration is a significant strength in an effort that truly requires a multi-disciplinary focus. We make decisions about AI as a team and collectively commit to the success of our chosen direction. We also commit to the feedback and follow-up process ensuring we remain nimble enough to make adjustments as our client needs and AI landscape continue to evolve.
What approaches have you found most effective in driving internal buy-in and sustained use of AI tools within your firm?
Andrew Johnson, Chief Information Officer @ Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Like anything, you need to start with why. Connecting the dots between technology, client service, and value gets attention and may result in budget allocations, but adoption and effective use will suffer if you aren’t aligned with leadership at the practice level and getting people to believe I can do this.
Esther Bowers, Chief Practice Innovation Officer @ Honigman LLP
Driving internal buy-in and sustained use of AI tools takes more than just rolling something out and making an announcement—we know it doesn’t work that way. I often say people need to hear about something seven times before it sticks, and it has to come through different channels with value-based messaging that speaks directly to what they care about. That takes creativity, active listening, and a team that’s fully aligned around a shared mission. Everyone on our team, even those outside of practice technology, is expected to understand how these tools support the work so they can confidently “sell” the benefits to attorneys. We reach people from multiple angles—training, case studies, client panels, innovation events, and day-to-day engagement—to make sure adoption is both meaningful and lasting.
Ashton Batchelor, Chief Innovation & Value Officer @ Blank Rome LLP | Frank Spadafino, Chief Information Officer @ Blank Rome LLP
Coordination is essential to attorney buy-in and adoption. The firm prioritized making space for learning and discussion about AI across all levels of the organization, including bringing in industry experts to help lawyers evaluate the intersection of AI in legal. AI was a key topic at the firm’s partner retreat with an engaging session by the founder of a leading legal generative AI application. Attorneys experimented with AI in a low-stakes environment and shared use cases through various mediums, fostering peer-driven buy-in. Further, a multi-modal training approach, including practice group sessions, “AI Saturdays,” and private coaching, were designed to meet lawyers where they were on their AI journey. Training focused on practical use cases, making it easier for attorneys to connect AI to their work.
Evan Shenkman, Chief Knowledge and Innovation Officer @ Fisher Phillips
The absolute most important thing is to have a great GenAI tool, that adds a ton of value, and is easy to use. Once you have that, start by mandating firm-wide training that focuses on practical, high-impact use cases. Next find attorney champions—both associates and partners—and periodically share their success stories. To win over remaining skeptics, point directly to RFPs and outside counsel guidelines showing how the firm’s clients increasingly expect innovation and responsible GenAI use.
What are some things you wish more AI or legal tech vendors understood before reaching out to your team?
Andrew Johnson, Chief Information Officer @ Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
You may have an outstanding product or service, but it may just be the wrong time. The best partnership will occur if we can realize sustained success with your platform, and that requires connecting at the right time on our AI journey.
Esther Bowers, Chief Practice Innovation Officer @ Honigman LLP
I wish more AI and legal tech vendors took the time to understand our internal procurement process, how we make decisions, and who our key stakeholders are. It would go a long way if they came in with a better understanding of our goals, integration requirements, and the real pain points we’re trying to solve. Every firm is different, and so are our practice strengths—what works for one may not work for us. A little upfront homework can make the conversation far more productive.
Ashton Batchelor, Chief Innovation & Value Officer @ Blank Rome LLP | Frank Spadafino, Chief Information Officer @ Blank Rome LLP
Sending broad solicitations or directly approaching attorneys with a sales pitch is rarely effective. Our best vendors respect the procurement and onboarding process, making it easier for us. The business team at a firm is your best ally in a partnership, but they manage competing priorities. Ethical, contractual, and regulatory requirements create unique challenges, especially with AI-based technologies. Vendors who haven’t prioritized learning the business of law are often the most challenging to partner with, making collaboration and understanding the firm’s process essential.
Evan Shenkman, Chief Knowledge and Innovation Officer @ Fisher Phillips
First, if you can’t meet our security and information governance standards, we can’t proceed—and most law firms won’t either. If you’re serious about selling to legal, get that in order up front. Also, take time to understand my firm, our practice areas, and our GenAI experience before reaching out. A thoughtful, tailored approach is far more likely to get my attention—and a response. Generic pitches are far less effective.
Many attorneys express hesitancy around using AI due to concerns like hallucinations, quality control, and potential impacts on billable hours. How do you think firms should weigh the tradeoffs between efficiency, accuracy, and economics when adopting AI?
Andrew Johnson, Chief Information Officer @ Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
There is no question our industry will continue to evolve, but the related pieces will advance at different speeds, creating tension along the way. Most clients are becoming educated on these topics and forming their own opinions. We should be prepared to listen and align while doing our part to craft novel solutions and demonstrate increasing value.
Esther Bowers, Chief Practice Innovation Officer @ Honigman LLP
Concerns like hallucinations, quality control, and the impact on billable hours are valid—but they can’t be the reason we stall progress. The real risk lies in not adopting AI and new ways of working, which will leave firms behind as the industry moves forward. Name an industry that isn’t exploring or implementing AI in some facet of their business—it’s hard to find one. At Honigman, we want to lead and partner with clients on this journey, not find ourselves playing catch-up because we were overly cautious. To address the concerns listed we firmly believe that this is why human talent remains essential to delivering high-quality legal services, and why we must build the right processes and guardrails to manage risk. Additionally, firm and practice strategies need to thoughtfully integrate AI into both short- and long-term planning—because standing still isn’t a viable business strategy.
Ashton Batchelor, Chief Innovation & Value Officer @ Blank Rome LLP | Frank Spadafino, Chief Information Officer @ Blank Rome LLP
“Ready, fire, aim” is a recipe for disaster when it comes to AI in a law firm. Having a roadmap to guide your AI strategy will keep you focused on the most relevant use cases and applications. Establishing rules for each AI application is crucial, including considerations like appropriate use, application selection, training, data governance, and compliance. When exploring ROI, evaluate whether the application saves costs, manages risk, or creates new revenue streams. Answering these questions before making long-term commitments will help align your AI strategy with business priorities. This approach ensures your AI initiatives are both effective and sustainable.
Evan Shenkman, Chief Knowledge and Innovation Officer @ Fisher Phillips
Prudent firms should weigh the tradeoffs in favor of responsibly using GenAI. When it comes to accuracy and quality, neither human lawyers nor GenAI tools are flawless, and recent, credible case studies show that attorneys aided by well-vetted legal GenAI consistently outperform those working manually, in both accuracy and speed. On the efficiency/economic front, at the end of the day our obligation is to deliver the highest quality work as efficiently as possible, and that includes using GenAI if it adds value. Most clients already expect—or will soon expect—their lawyers to use these tools. That said, I can report that our attorneys have been even busier and more productive in the GenAI era than in the years preceding it, and I expect that trend to continue.
“No Robo Bosses Act” Proposed in California to Limit Use of AI Systems in Employment Decisions
A new bill in California, SB 7, proposed by State Senator Jerry McNerney, seeks to limit and regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) decision making in hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination decisions. Also known as the “No Robo Bosses Act,” SB 7 applies a broad definition of “automated decision system,” or “ADS,” as: any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to assist or replace human discretionary decision making and materially impacts natural persons. An automated decision system does not include a spam email filter, firewall, antivirus, software, identity and access management tools, calculator, database, dataset, or other compilation of data.
Specifically, SB 7 would:
Require employers to provide a plain-language, standalone notice to employees, contractors, and applicants that the employer is using ADS in employment-related decisions at least 30 days before the introduction of the ADS (or by February 1, 2026, if the ADS is already in use).
Require employers to maintain a list of all ADS in use and include that list in the notice to employees, contractors, and applicants.
Prohibit employers from relying primarily on ADS for hiring, promotion, discipline, or termination decisions.
Prohibit employers from using ADS that prevents compliance with or violates the law or regulations, obtains or infers a protected status, conducts predictive behavior analysis, predicts or takes action against a worker for exercising legal rights, or uses individualized worker data to inform compensation.
Allow workers to access the data collected and correct errors.
Allow workers to appeal an employment-related decision for which ADS was used, and require an employer to have a human reviewer.
Create enforcement provisions against discharging, discriminating, or retaliating against workers for exercising their rights under SB 7.
Similar to SB 7, the California Civil Rights Council has proposed regulations that would protect employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation related to an employer’s use of ADS. The Civil Rights Council identifies several examples, such as predictive assessments that measure skills or personality trainings and tools that screen resumes or direct advertising, that may discriminate against employees, contractors, or applicants based on a protected class. The proposed rule and SB 7 would work in tandem, if both are passed through their respective government bodies.
The bill is still in the beginning stages. It is set for its first committee hearing — Senate Labor, Public employment, and Retirement Committee — on April 9, 2025. How the bill may transform before (and if) it becomes law is still unknown, but because of the potential reach of this bill and the possibility other states may emulate it, SB 7 is one to watch.
Opinion: DEI & Bullying – Where Law, Politics and Business Need to Align
The recent news that Trump rescinded the executive order issued six days earlier against law firm Paul Weiss is a striking example of the intersections between politics, law, and business. According to Business Insider, “… since Trump’s earlier order to revoke its security clearances, the law firm has lost clients” and their government contracts were put at risk. The law firm’s security clearance has been reinstated after an agreement was reached with the Trump Administration.
For the legal profession, it seems to be the tip of the iceberg. Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie were issued separate executive orders on February 25 and March 6. And, on March 25 and 27, two more executive orders targeting prestigious firms were issued – Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block and Addressing Risks from WilmerHale.
Who’s next? Is the White House bullying law firms over DEI practices?
These incidents are part of a broader narrative unfolding across America, where political shifts are influencing business practices, and law firms, corporations, and elected officials find themselves at the crossroads of political ideologies and corporate responsibilities. In light of these developments, there is a growing concern about the broader implications for the workplace and business ethics.
For decades, DEI initiatives have functioned as guardrails in the corporate world, ensuring fair treatment in hiring, promoting inclusivity, and fostering environments where bias is actively mitigated. These practices, designed to level the playing field, were never about special advantages. Instead, they emphasized fairness—hiring and promoting the right person for the right job, regardless of their background.
Corporate America in the pre-DEI era was a very different place, often characterized by unchecked biases, discrimination, and exclusion. Although we’ve made significant progress, there are individuals and organizations that still foster a negative professional culture.
Pressure on law firms to drop DEI practices comes amid broader efforts to scale back DEI across corporate America, including sectors that have seen significant benefits from inclusive hiring. According to Business Insider, “… companies like Walmart, Meta, and Lowe’s have all rolled back their DEI programs.”
The erosion of protections that have improved workplaces over the past 20 years will reverse much of the progress made over the past few decades – but will not erase it. There are too many people—managers, employees, customers, investors—who believe in the practice, whether supported by policy or not.
And, these protections have not only created safer, more inclusive environments but have also contributed to better business outcomes. Diverse teams, after all, produce more innovative solutions, offer broader perspectives, and serve diverse client bases more effectively. And, even with DEI in place, many corporations misbehave, particularly under the guise of “business as usual.”
Employees are the lifeblood of any organization. Creating a happy, productive, and safe work environment is essential to the success of any company. DEI initiatives—and a movement toward a safe, fair workplace—have been an essential part of fostering these environments, ensuring that all employees have the opportunity to succeed, regardless of their background or company culture.
However, if companies are allowed to abandon these initiatives, I fear that we will see a return to the corporate cultures of the past, rife with discrimination, exclusion, bias and bullying.
“In the words of William Edward Demming, ‘a bad system will always beat a good person’,” said Sharon Mahn, Esq., a leading legal recruiter and workplace expert. “Equality in the workplace means ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background or characteristics, has the same opportunity and is treated fairly.”
Even with DEI and legal protections in place, some corporations seem to behave badly. Without these checks and balances, this type of behavior will become more widespread.
The intersection of politics and law in business is unavoidable. Political decisions, such as Trump’s executive orders, can have wide-reaching effects on corporate practices, and law firms are forced to make very difficult decisions for the sake of multiple stakeholders. Legal structures, on the other hand, provide the mechanisms for enforcing fairness.
When politics and law fail to align with business ethics, the consequences for employees and organizations alike can be catastrophic.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The National Law Review.
Mistake No. 9 of the Top 10 Horrible, No-Good Mistakes Construction Lawyers Make: Screwing Up the Hearing Exhibits
I have practiced law for 40 years with the vast majority as a “construction” lawyer. I have seen great… and bad… construction lawyering, both when representing a party and when serving over 300 times as a mediator or arbitrator in construction disputes. I have made my share of mistakes and learned from my mistakes. I was lucky enough to have great construction lawyer mentors to lean on and learn from, so I try to be a good mentor to young construction lawyers. Becoming a great and successful construction lawyer is challenging, but the rewards are many. The following is No. 9 of the top 10 mistakes I have seen construction lawyers make, and yes, I have been guilty of making this same mistake.
While the legal profession has come a long way as far as being “paperless,” with few exceptions, construction legal disputes still maintain a high level of tree killing. To be clear, clients have moved on and are at the forefront, using AI as well as project specific software (like Procore) to manage the enormous amount of documentation necessary to timely and properly design and build large projects. While I have served on a few arbitration panels where all sides cooperate and have presented exhibits exclusively via thumb drives/laptops and links, these are the exceptions and not the rule. Last year, I was on a panel for a three-week arbitration involving six parties (owner, architect, prime contractor, surety, two subcontractors). Despite pre-hearing admonitions by the panel for counsel to work cooperatively on joint exhibits, clearly labeled and numbered, the parties presented each panel member with a total of 60 black exhibit books, each more than six inches thick… and 75% of the exhibits in each side’s set were exactly the same. Precious time was wasted during the hearing dealing with redundant and poorly organized exhibits and caused a lot of confusion. A typical exchange went something like this: “Panel, please go to our Exhibit Book 23, exhibit 235, and sorry, this exhibit has 45 pages that are not numbered, so go somewhere in the middle.” Counsel and the arbitrators would then stand up, reach back to their exhibit book stack, sort through and find the right numbered book, haul it back to the table, move (or step over) the five books they just used, pull open the book with the three-hole binder (which typically gets broken), and try to find the referenced exhibit.
There’s a better way, and before the construction lawyers out there grind their teeth and shake their heads, please remember that your goal as an advocate is to persuade the arbitrator of the merits of your client’s position. Anything you can do to make the arbitrator’s decision easier (yes, treat your arbitrator like Santa) should be done. Here are just a few of the ways – some easy, some hard – that have been implemented to address this issue, especially in large, multi-week arbitrations, with hundreds of exhibits and scores of witnesses:
Go fully or even partially paperless.
This takes full cooperation and coordination with not only counsel, but the arbitrator (who may still want hard copies). Technology is great until it is not. Is the hearing room appropriate and has the necessary technology? Of course, no need to worry about a room if it is a 100% virtual arbitration (which happened many times during COVID). But, what’s plan B if something goes wrong? Chaos happens, and that’s no good especially if it happens to you (and thus your client).
Create a joint set of exhibits.
Most good arbitrators mandate in the initial scheduling order that counsel exchange a list of all possible exhibits 30 days prior to the hearings and then work together in good faith (yes, I know that can be hard) to create a joint set of exhibit books. As mentioned above, if each side prepares and brings its own set of exhibit books, it is certain that many, if not most, of the exhibits in each sides’ books will be identical. Avoiding duplication is really easier than you think. The books can be organized in sections with a joint index. By way of example: pre-hearing briefs; contracts; pay applications, pictures/videos, damages backup, summaries, specifications, expert reports; and a year-by-year chronology (notice letters and emails). Remember that generally the technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply in arbitrations, so there is no need to fight about relevancy or admissibility. Absent something unusual, all the submitted exhibits from all sides will be admitted by the arbitrator. While this process can take time and effort, setting aside the fact that it will make the arbitrator’s life easier (especially during the post-hearing award process), it has enormous benefits, including making the preparation of witnesses and examinations so much easier and more efficient. If you try it, you will like it. If the arbitrator does not suggest this process during the initial call, you should do so.
Identify the exhibit books you will be using before an examination.
Do not wait until you begin a witness examination (direct or cross) to specify which book you will be using. Tell the arbitrator (and counsel) before you start which books you will be using so everyone can pull out those books and better follow your examination. Again, this eliminates all sides going back and forth to find the applicable witness books.
Consider creating witness exhibit books.
This may seem counterintuitive if the goals is to limit the number of books, but if you have a witness with a small number of exhibits that are scattered among multiple books, consider putting together an exhibit book for that witness that has the exhibits already numbered (as well as what books they are in).
Color code the exhibit books on the front and the spine.
Most counsel use the same black exhibit books. While there may be a label on the front and sometimes the spine, especially if there are multiple books, there can be confusion and time wasted. Using a different color code on the labels, or even different color binders, can help efficiency (“Please go to book 5, the red one.”).
Make sure each page in each exhibit is numbered.
While many of the exhibits will have their own numbers, confusion and delay occur when, for instance, there is an exhibit that has 20-60 pages, but the individual pages are not numbered. This happens with photos, long text streams and multiple invoices. There is nothing more frustrating for an arbitrator (and a witness), and it disrupts an examination, for the lawyer to say: “Please turn to book 18, exhibit 135, and if you go about ¼ of the way in, you will see a picture that looks like…” And no one can find it. Worse, halfway through your “Perry Mason-like” cross examination about that picture, the arbitrator says “Counsel, sorry, I must have been looking at the wrong picture. Can you orient me?”
Make good decisions on what exhibits go into your books, and keep up with what exhibits have been used in the hearing.
The arbitrator understands that since there is limited pre-hearing discovery in most arbitrations (sometimes no depositions), the tendency is to include every possible document or email. But be careful not to dump scores of exhibits into books that may not even be used. This will impact your credibility. And pay close attention to what exhibits are actually used during the hearing. It may be (again, treat your arbitrator like Santa) that with everyone’s cooperation, there can be scores of exhibits removed from books, or even complete books can be withdrawn.
When there will be multiple exhibit books, these simple guidelines will help you, your client, and witnesses better prepare and present your case. You can enhance your credibility by using these tactics regarding exhibits prior to your next arbitration hearing.
Timing and Planning Fundamentals for Transitioning Founder-Owned Law Firms
Ensuring the longevity and success of a founder-owned law firm requires meticulous planning, especially when transitioning senior partners toward retirement. This article outlines strategic policies and actionable steps that can significantly enhance the likelihood of a smooth transition, thereby maintaining client trust and firm continuity.
Importance of Mandatory Retirement Planning
Mandatory retirements facilitate leadership changes and create opportunities for junior partners, yet an unprepared firm may face challenges if such retirements occur prematurely. Conversely, not making room for the advancement of younger partners will also negatively impact a firm.
Addressing Retirement Controversy
Mandatory retirement ages often generate controversy. Many clients appreciate the experience of senior lawyers who possess extensive institutional knowledge or trial expertise. Setting a retirement age arbitrarily, without a transition plan, is frequently unproductive and impractical. Nonetheless, failing to establish a retirement age presents its own set of serious issues.
Challenges of Senior Partner Transitions
Consider a scenario involving a senior partner who is unwilling to implement a transition plan and chooses to retain maximum control over client accounts. Such partners typically do not adequately introduce their partners or senior associates to their clients or discuss continuity plans with the firm or the clients. In these cases, a practice may decline when clients become aware that there is no succession plan, exposing them to potential risks.
Strategic Transition Period Approach
To address continuity issues, we recommend a transition period approach that can ease partners into retirement, benefit clients, and ensure the firm’s continued success.
10 Action Steps for Effective Transition Planning
Establish a Mandatory Retirement Planning Age:
Define a mandatory age for submitting a transition plan.
Communicate Policy Clearly:
Ensure all partners are informed about the retirement age policy through official meetings, internal memos, and written guidelines.
Provide Flexibility:
Incorporate exceptions or extensions based on individual contributions, client relationships, and firm needs.
Plan for Transition:
Encourage partners to discuss their retirement plans when they reach the age of 60 as part of a long-range planning process.
Create Incentives:
Develop incentives for partners to engage in transition planning, including post-retirement compensation and reduced billable requirements during the transition phase.
Define Criteria:
Establish clear criteria for passing on practices, including client introductions, marketing activities, case and role assignments, and client notices.
Support Successor Partners:
Support successor partners through enhanced marketing efforts, client visits, and billing adjustments for transition-related casework.
Implement Policy on Transition Costs:
Develop a policy addressing the costs and investments associated with transitions to ensure fair distribution among partners.
Monitor Progress:
Review and monitor transition plan progress regularly to ensure they are on track and address any challenges promptly.
Provide Training and Coaching:
Offer training and mentorship programs for senior partners to help them adjust to their new role and effectively pass on their knowledge and client relationships to successor partners.
Conclusion
By following these steps, a founder-owned law firm can ensure a smooth and orderly transition of practices, retain client trust, and maintain its long-term success.
Post-Transition Compensation/Buyout for Founding Law Firm Partners
Set Reasonable Expectations
Founder-owned law firms face unique challenges when it comes to transition planning. Ensuring a seamless handover to successor partners while maintaining profitability and morale is critical. This guide outlines practical strategies for managing founder partner buyouts and succession planning.
Challenges in Compensation Systems
Most small—to mid-sized firms compensate based on originations and profits. If both the founder and successor lawyer simultaneously receive credit in the compensation system, this can create financial difficulties. Recognizing these challenges early can help mitigate potential conflicts.
Practicalities of Buyouts
Buyouts are more practical between the retiring senior partner (seller) and the successor partners (buyers). Non-successor partners may resist contributing to a buyout that does not directly benefit them. Furthermore, a buyout may not be feasible depending on the firm’s profitability.
Transitioning the Founder’s Business
The founder’s business might not transfer successfully, and other partners may believe that the founding partner was already compensated while working and is not entitled to post-retirement pay. Junior partners who have worked on the senior partner’s clients might feel they deserve to inherit the relationships.
Alignment of Partner Timelines
The timelines of the remaining partners may not align with the potential benefits of buying out a founding partner. Recognizing these concerns is crucial, and founders should avoid overreaching. Sensible buyouts can help ensure that the firm’s top attorneys are not motivated to start a new firm to avoid paying senior partners a disproportionate share of current profits.
Assessing Retirement as an Independent Transaction
We advise clients to assess each retirement as an independent transaction. To perform this evaluation, the following tools are necessary:
Client profitability of the transitioning partner’s book of business
Capacity Analysis post-transition
Worklife timeline for the retiring partner
Worklife timeline for the remaining partner(s)
Origination ceding schedule
Pro-forma profitability of the transitioning book for three years
Compensation pro forma for the retiring partner and the successor partners
Objective and Process-Oriented Approach
Adopting an objective, process-oriented approach when determining a buyout price and structure minimizes the emotional aspects of negotiation. Firms equipped with the requisite data to conduct these analyses can establish expectations early in the process and create a framework for future buyouts.
Transition Modeling
To manage expectations effectively, we recommend initiating transition modeling two years before the start of any transition. We prefer a three-year buyout period with a declining payment schedule based on profitability measures before buyout costs.
Transition Compensation Elements
The key elements in setting transition compensation include an objective, process-oriented approach, early expectation-setting, and a consistent model.
Conclusion
Effective transition planning is essential for founder-owned law firms to ensure smooth succession and maintain firm stability. By recognizing potential challenges, adopting an objective approach, and initiating early planning, firms can navigate transitions successfully and safeguard their legacy.
March 2025 Legal News: Law Firm News, 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! March is upon us. 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
Blank Rome LLP announced the addition of Michael G. Greenfield and Derek E. Schultz as associates in the Labor & Employment group in the firm’s Philadelphia office. Both bring extensive expertise in employment, labor and union-related matters.
Mr. Greenfield advises employers on labor relations issues such as decertification elections, union organizing elections and negotiating collective bargaining agreements.
Mr. Schultz assists clients in employment and labor litigation matters including union representation and decertification elections in addition to negotiating collective bargaining agreements. He also defends and prosecutes unfair labor practice charges.
Alamdar S. Hamdani, former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, joined Bracewell LLP’s Houston office as a partner in the firm’s government enforcement and investigations practice.
Mr. Hamdani served as theU.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas from December 2022 until January 2025, leading one of the largest US Attorney’s Offices in the Department of Justice with 400 employees. The office handled more than 10,000 criminal cases and maintained an average conviction rate of 95 percent under his leadership.
“We are excited to welcome Al to the firm,” said Bracewell Managing Partner Gregory M. Bopp. “Al is a highly regarded practitioner, whose leadership as a federal prosecutor brings additional strength to our preeminent government enforcement and investigations practice.”
Plunkett Cooney, PC announced the addition of Kaleb I. Hobgood as an attorney in the firm’s Torts and Litigation Practice Group in the Indiana Office. He will help the team continue its focus on the defense of all manner of civil litigation.
Mr. Hobgood focuses his practice on insurance defense litigation involving premises liability, product liability and motor vehicle claims.In addition, he has experience representing individuals, businesses and insurers in civil defense matters including property damage disputes and bodily injury.
Legal Industry Awards and Recognition
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP announced that 10 of the firm’s attorneys were named to the 2025 Southern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists. The rating service selects lawyers who have achieved a high level of professional achievement and peer recognition.
Los Angeles attorneys honored on the list are Abby Feinman, David Halberstadter, Michael S. Hobel, Carol A. Johnston, Bruce G. Vanyo and Joel R. Weiner and Senior Counsel Benzion J. Westreich.
Partners Daniel H. Render and Paul S. Yong, as well as Associate Avi Pariser, were named to the Rising Stars list.
Gary M. Markoff, member of Sherin and Lodgen LLP’s Corporate and Real Estate Departments, served as a judge for the 2024-2025 American Bar Association National Appellate Advocacy Competition.
Mr. Markhoff judged the second round of the Boston regional competition, hearing law students exercise oral advocacy skills in a moot court setting on the Fourth Amendment. The NAAC sees competitors participate in a hypothetical appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
In his practice, Mr. Markhoff works with clients on bank financings and transactions. He has experience representing companies in mergers and acquisitions and recapitalization.
Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP was recognized as a Pinnacle Performing Law Firm in the 2024 Leopard Law Firm Index in a Top 200 spot. The index evaluates firms based on visibility, profitability, potential opportunity and growth.
The firms are ranked by Leopard Solutions on key indicators of firm sustainability including partner promotions, attorney retention, revenue trends, recruiting success and diversity. As a Pinnacle Performing Law Firm, Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP was highlighted for demonstrating strong performance and long-term viability.
DEI and Women in Law
Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. announced that principal Janet Wagner was named co-chair of the newly formed Chicago Bar Association’s Domestic Violence Committee. Its mission is to raise awareness and provide education on issues related to abuse and domestic violence.
Ms. Wagner focuses her practice on transactions in real estate, banking and corporate areas, offering solutions to issues while providing analysis of the issue. In addition, she is committed to advocating on behalf of domestic violence and abuse victims.
Lisa Tancredi, partner in Womble Bond Dickinson LLP’s Baltimore and Wilmington offices, was announced as a member of The Daily Record’s 2025 Business Law Power List. Tancredi is among 20 attorneys recognized as the most respected and influential practitioners in Maryland’s business law field.
“The most important thing that I do is listen,” Tancredi told The Daily Record. “Listening is essential to understanding clients’ and other parties’ concerns and goals, which are the building blocks of solutions and game plans.”
Moore & Van Allen PLLC announced that member Lesley A. Firestone was named to South Carolina Lawyers Weekly’s 2025 Influential Women of Law. The program honors outstanding women lawyers and judges making a difference in their community and profession.
Ms. Firestone handles complex environmental law matters in the Charleston region, representing a wide range of clients including real estate developers, lenders, landfill operators, manufacturers, renewable energy developers and investors. She provides guidance in the purchase or sale of contaminated properties and the permitting, compliance counseling, and resolution or avoidance of environmental enforcement issues.
Remaining an advocate for Charleston’s business and civic health, Ms. Firestone serves with the Charleston Chapter of the Industrial Network Group and participated in Leadership Charleston’s 2020 class.
It’s Time for Attorney-Led Voir Dire Everywhere
Since the country’s founding, there has been a recognition of how important it is for citizens, through their attorneys, to have a say in selecting jurors for their legal cases. “If you go back all the way to original notes on the Seventh Amendment in the Constitutional Convention, attorney-conducted voir dire was such an integral part of what (the founders) believed to be a fair trial process that the original draft to the Seventh Amendment included attorney-conducted voir dire,” told David Harak of the Harak Law Firm to The Daily Record.
Ultimately, the language in the Seventh Amendment itself was broader, highlighting “the right of trial by jury” and “the rules of common law” for lawsuits. More than two centuries later (238 years to be exact), debates over attorney-led voir dire are still underway. In fact, they’re gaining new steam.
Most states allow attorneys to take part in questioning jurors—but not all. Some states, like New Jersey, have strict limits against this practice. Over the last couple of years, New Jersey has launched pilot programs to consider changing the law.
These followed an Order from the New Jersey Supreme Court, which noted that “New Jersey is one of only a handful of state court jurisdictions that continue to use a judge-led system of voir dire. Many scholars, jurists, and practitioners advocate for an alternate approach known as Attorney-Conducted Voir Dire (ACVD). While different forms of ACVD exist, the general model is one in which attorneys question jurors, typically as a group, under the oversight of a judge who intervenes if and as appropriate, including for sidebar discussions and determination of challenges.”
Attorney-led voir dire can be essential in giving clients their best shot at a fair trial. When practicing in states that allow attorneys to question jurors, the people represented often get better outcomes. In these states, the defendants — often large, powerful corporations with huge sums of money to spend on legal maneuvers — know that I’ll be able to weed out jurors who may have unconscious biases against my client. They’re therefore more incentivized to settle before or during a trial.
The arguments against attorney-led voir dire often revolve around questions of time and fairness. “Some judges advocate minimal voir dire because they believe that extensive pretrial questioning could ‘waste too much time and unduly invade jurors’ privacy,’” a 2021 study explained. “Those judges and proponents of minimal voir dire assume that potential jurors can spontaneously self-identify their sources of bias, are willing to admit them and, when they do acknowledge biases, can set them aside and be impartial after undergoing judicial rehabilitation.”
The research by a team of professors from four universities (Arizona State University, the University of Denver, Cornell and Stanford) found flaws with the thinking about how voir dire often works. “First, it is assumed that individuals are both aware of and willing to acknowledge their biases during voir dire. Second, it is assumed that jurors who acknowledge their own biases can be ‘rehabilitated’ through a procedure whereby a judge informs prospective jurors that they must set aside their biases and asks them explicitly whether they can agree to do so.”
Focused on civil cases, the study found that, “Judicial rehabilitation did not reduce the biasing impact of their preexisting attitudes on case judgments—but did result in mock jurors reporting that they were less biased, despite judicial rehabilitation not actually reducing their bias.” The group concluded that, “Attorneys need the opportunity during voir dire to ask jurors about specific attitudes that might bias their decisions because relying on jurors’ self-identification of their own biases has little utility.”
Many Americans have biases against personal injury plaintiffs. They’ve been exposed to the idea that these kinds of claims are bogus. Perhaps the most infamous example became known as “hot coffee.” As NPR reported, the case became a legend, with people believing that a woman foolishly put hot coffee from McDonalds between her legs and was ultimately awarded nearly $3 million from the company because it spilled. The reality, exposed in a documentary, was very different. Given the extent and location of the severe burns, and how they apparently occurred because that particular McDonalds did not follow its own safety guidelines on water temperature, the plaintiff did not get nearly enough. Tellingly, the laypersons or legal professionals who viewed the burn images and learned about the actual liability details felt the same way.
All sorts of experiences and beliefs can lead good people to enter into a trial without a fair and open mindset. How are litigants (plaintiffs or defendants) to determine if their jury pool’s bias is based upon knowledge (or ignorance) of important facts of “famous” personal injury matters, like those exposed in the Mcdonald’s documentary, or other inherent bias accumulated over a lifetime of corporate/media, rather than factual, information? When a civil case makes it to trial, the plaintiff and defendant have the right to expect a fair trial. Agreeing on a jury based upon meaningful discussion and inquiry, rather than a “gut feeling” and expediency, is a key part of making that happen. It’s time to ensure that all Americans, in every state, have this chance.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The National Law Review.
5 Ways Estate Attorneys Can Bring Order to Their Clients’ Digital Asset Chaos
Digital assets are exploding. According to NordPass, the average person now has 168 online accounts, and that list is growing all the time — in both volume and value. A new survey from Bryn Mawr Trust found that Americans estimate an average value of $191,516 in digital assets; yet, 76% of them still have little to scant knowledge of digital estate planning. More problematic, many advisors still do not acknowledge digital assets as a general asset category to address with clients. As a result, many estate plans inadequately address — or completely ignore — access to and the disposition of digital assets.
Digital assets, at a high level, include: digitally stored documents, email accounts and electronic communications, loyalty program rewards and airline miles, photos and videos, social media accounts, cryptocurrency, subscriptions, online businesses, other digital interests, and accounts controlled by service providers. They all now demand proper estate planning.
Why does any of this matter? Overlooking digital assets leaves the legal representatives of the estate (i.e. executor, administrator, and personal representative):
Potentially locked out of valuable digital assets and accounts, resulting in a direct financial or sentimental loss to the estate and its beneficiaries.
Spending countless hours and resources trying to gain access to said accounts.
Dealing with exposed personal identifiable information from the decedent’s various online accounts, leaving them vulnerable to identity theft and other cybersecurity risks.
In addition to failing to comprehensively serve evolving client needs, a lack of planning in this area could expose attorneys and other advisors to potential future liability. How to access and transfer digital assets should be a standard part of every client conversation for the modern estate planning advisor.
Digital assets are more ubiquitous and valuable than ever, so why does a large swath of the estate planning community still lag behind in addressing this critical area?
This generally stems from a lack of understanding of:
The prevalence of digital assets in most clients’ lives;
The potential negative impact if these assets are overlooked;
How to address this topic with clients;
How to effectively incorporate digital interests into estate plans and accompanying materials; and
Where to turn to for technical guidance and support.
The following general guidelines are aimed to help estate planning advisors better understand this developing area and begin to guide clients through the digital estate planning process, in order to protect clients, their legal representatives and beneficiaries, and our practices:
1. Educate Clients on the Importance of Digital Asset Planning
Most clients don’t realize the risks of ignoring their digital behaviors and footprint. In fact, you have probably heard some say:”I don’t have any digital assets.”
Further, many advisors and clients operate under the ill-advised assumption that, if they don’t own any cryptocurrency, then they don’t have any digital assets. However, the reality is the majority of people have a plethora of digital assets and accounts. Whether they realize it or not, our clients are creating digital footprints in a multitude of ways, every day, often without a second thought. As technology progresses, our digital and physical lives are reaching new levels of entanglement.
So, if a client has, at a minimum:
Photos or videos on a device or in a cloud
Email accounts (and other online electronic communications, Slack, Google Chat, WhatsApp, etc.)
Social media profiles
Online banking, utility, or shopping accounts
Cloud storage (Google Drive, iCloud, etc.)
Loyalty programs or airline miles
…they are accumulating digital assets, accounts, and interests that require protection and planning.
Many clients may also now have an interest in or accumulate:
Domain names and websites
Digital works, recordings, and content (artists and creators)
Ecommerce and other online businesses (i.e. Etsy, Amazon, etc.)
Cryptocurrency, NFTs, and Forex
Gaming tokens
Metaverse or other virtual property
Avatars, digital twins, and personalized bots (and customized AI large language models)
Name, image, and likeness (NIL) considerations, where applicable
… which require even more protection and planning.
The diverse categories of digital assets above demonstrate why it’s important to ask clients questions about their digital behaviors as part of the standard estate planning conversation. Here are a few examples of questions to help initiate the digital asset planning discussion:
Do you use online bill pay for any of your recurring expenses?
Who handles this in your household?
How many personal email accounts do you use?
How much shopping do you do online?
What are your three most important digital assets?
How do you store photos and videos?
Do you use social media?
What, if any, important information do you still receive through traditional mail?
If something suddenly happened to you, is there information in cyberspace or data in a device that would need to be accessed to help administer your estate or that you would want to be transferred to a certain individual or deleted?
These questions are just the beginning of the conversation and can provide a wealth of information to direct the structure of the digital asset aspect of the plan, which should be based on the needs and desires of the client.
2. Help Clients Inventory Their Digital Assets
Most clients underestimate the size of their digital footprint. Beyond social media and email, they often have a mix of valuable, sentimental, and potentially vulnerable digital accounts with personally identifiable information that need managing. As part of gathering general asset and liability information for a client at the beginning of the planning process, collecting information regarding digital assets, accounts, and devices and understanding digital behavior should be standard practice.
There are online services to help you handle this, but here are some tips if you want to do-it-yourself:
Start with Hardware
An inventory should have an area for clients to list all devices that store data, access online accounts, or store biometric information:
Computers & Laptops
Smartphones & Tablets
External Drives, Flash Drives & Hard Wallets
E-Readers, Digital Cameras & Music Players
Wearables, Smart Glasses & Gaming Devices
Alarms & Smart Home Systems
Tip: Even old devices may store sensitive data that requires attention and protection.
Include Stored Data
The inventory should go beyond hardware and map out where digital files reside:
Cloud Services: Google Drive, iCloud, Dropbox, etc.
Local Drives & External Storage: Hard drives, SD cards, USBs
Backups & Archives: Time Machine, Windows Backup
AWS Drives and Services
Applications
Many clients and advisors overlook the personal and financial data tucked away in the cloud, applications, or on forgotten drives. Where is that manuscript? Where are all the family photos and videos stored?
List Online Accounts & Digital Assets with Monetary or Sentimental Value
The inventory should also include all online accounts and digital assets with monetary or sentimental value, as this is where assets can be overlooked, which could result in financial or other loss. Encourage clients to list:
Email Accounts: The gateway to most digital assets and accounts in a paperless world.
Social Media: Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, etc.
Financial Platforms: Banks, PayPal, Venmo, Wallets/Exchanges
E-Commerce & Subscriptions: Amazon, streaming services, food delivery
Utilities & Loyalty Programs: Household bills, airline miles, hotel points
Cryptocurrency (date acquired, purchase price, type, blockchain, method stored, public exchange/self-custody? If self-custody, how held [hot storage/cold storage]? How are keys/recovery seed phrases stored?)
NFTs (date acquired, price, blockchain, internet location, transfer rights, royalties, etc.?)
Pro Tip: Have them scan emails for receipts and password reset links to uncover forgotten accounts.
Flag Web-Based Assets & Intellectual Property
For entrepreneurs, creators, or side hustlers, dig deeper:
Domain Names & Hosting Accounts
Websites, Blogs & Online Stores (Shopify, Etsy, and Amazon)
Creative Works: Copyrighted materials, trademarks, code, art, photography, etc.
Having an inventory of the digital assets and accounts of a client stored in a safe location will save significant time and expense in the future. It is also important to periodically update the inventory as digital interests change and expand. Sharing this type of information is prohibited under several federal laws, such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act.
3. Help Clients Set Wishes For Each Asset
Not all digital assets and accounts should be treated equally. Digital asset planning cannot be done using a one-size-fits-all approach. Digital assets and behaviors can vary widely among clients, much like general planning needs for traditional assets.
For instance, some clients will want to preserve family photos or social media accounts, while others may want certain accounts deleted for privacy. It’s important to note: even if digital assets and accounts can be legally accessed by an estate representative, legal access does not equate to actual use, and oftentimes, additional pre-planning measures are required to provide instructions on how to use digital assets or what to do with them once accessed (i.e. an Etsy shop or small online business with intellectual property). This type of use information is not customarily included in the legal documents in an estate plan and instead should be provided through instructions manuals, a tech management plan, or other user related information as part of the overall planning process.
Others clients still may want to liquidate and transfer crypto assets to their estate representatives, which can require additional technological expertise and assistance, and the timing of this can also have potential tax and valuation implications. Cryptocurrency poses its own set of unique planning challenges, which can vary depending on the type of crypto and how it is held (i.e. public exchange or self-custody [which can also take on various forms]) and planning for this type of interest will be further addressed in a future article.
It is important to discuss the following considerations with clients:
Access/Transfer
Can the digital asset be legally transferred or does the user only have a lifetime license?
Can the digital asset be legally owned or accessed by a trust?
Are there revenue-generating accounts, cryptocurrency wallets, or loyalty points that should be preserved or transferred to the estate?
Should online businesses or websites be transferred to a successor or closed and how are these activities being supported during transitional periods?
What information is going to need to be immediately accessible to legal representatives in the event of sudden incapacity or death?
Preserve
Should sentimental assets like family photos, records, videos, or social media profiles be archived for future generations? Who should be the recipient(s)? Should these digital memories be saved in other formats to ensure ease of access?
Is there any intellectual property, like creative works or digital art, that need to be preserved?
Are there recurring subscription fees for software, programs, or platforms connected to or necessary to use/access the digital interest?
Is the digital asset or interest located online or contained in a computer, device, or hard drive? How are items of tangible property that can have intangible digital components handled in an estate plan?
Close
Which accounts should be permanently closed or scrubbed to protect privacy, such as unused subscriptions, wearables, or social media profiles?
Is there any sensitive data that should be wiped, like email accounts or online shopping accounts, or data on a device to prevent identity theft?
Be Aware of Online Tools & RUFADAA Compliance
As part of this conversation, clients must also understand the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA), a law adopted by most states to regulate access by a fiduciary (i.e. executor, administrator or personal representative of an estate, trustee of a trust, agent under power of attorney, and guardian of an incapacitated person’s estate) to the digital assets and accounts of a user. Under RUFADAA, users must explicitly authorize fiduciary access based on a three-tier hierarchy:
An Online Tool (an agreement between the user and a service provider separate, which provides directions for the disclosure or non-disclosure of digital assets)
Estate planning documents that address fiduciary access (if an Online Tool is not available or used); and
Terms of Service Agreements (TOSAs) apply if neither of the first two exist. However, many TOSAs restrict or prohibit asset transfers or are silent on fiduciary access, often requiring a court order for access in many situations.
Even if fiduciary access provisions are incorporated into an estate plan, some service providers may still require a court order authorizing access before it is provided or may limit access to certain information. For example, electronic communications, such as the contents of an email, are subject to a heightened standard of privacy under RUFADAA and access must be specifically authorized in estate planning documents or an Online Tool to be disclosed. Obtaining court orders to access digital accounts can be time consuming and expensive — increasing the importance of clear instructions and directives for digital assets to reduce delays and potential legal hurdles.
In addition, identifying accounts where Online Tools have been utilized is important to include in the digital asset inventory. The use of an Online Tool is similar to a beneficiary designation for traditional assets (i.e. retirement plans, investment accounts, and life insurance policies) without the well-settled law to invalidate designations in a variety of situations. Using Online Tools has many benefits and can streamline access, but should be done with great care and reviewed as part of an overall estate plan.
Additionally, new tech solutions have entered the marketplace to help advisors and clients manage digital estates and legacies. These platforms offer inventory tools, secure storage, and digital memorialization services. Such platforms can help reduce legal hurdles, ensure a secure and seamless transition of digital assets and important information, and better serve future estate representatives and practitioners as they carry out the client’s wishes.
4. Partner With Tech-Savvy Professionals & Advisors
The transfer and access of property, including digital assets (that are not controlled by an Online Tool or TOSA), is carried out through the estate administration process, and what a fiduciary is allowed or prohibited to do is determined by jurisdictional estate and fiduciary laws and the provisions of a will or revocable trust.
Unlike physical assets, which can often be easily identified and transferred, digital assets may be protected by passwords, encryption, and privacy policies. They could also have complicated technological components, making them difficult to access without the help of seasoned experts.
While some clients have more complicated technological needs, one solution to address this situation is to empower the fiduciary to be able to hire technology experts to assist with administration of the digital estate.
Another option is to appoint a technology advisor or committee in the planning documents for the fiduciary to utilize. Technical advisor appointments can define the scope of the advice to be provided, requisite technical expertise aligned with a specific digital asset, and include discretionary powers that can be modified by the fiduciary.
Lastly, estate advisors should be familiar with different types of advisors to serve their clients digital interests and needs. For example, some digital assets may be hard to value, requiring specialized expertise from qualified appraisers. Other clients may have their personal or business IT systems hacked, requiring referrals to competent cybersecurity teams and outfits.
5. Make It Legally Binding and Review Regularly
These are many types of clients with varying digital usage that impact both technical and legal aspects of an estate plan. A well-structured digital estate plan should be actionable, secure, and seamlessly integrated with an overall estate plan.
A basic estate plan typically includes:
A will
In some states, a revocable trust
Financial and healthcare powers of attorney
At a minimum, practitioners should discuss with their clients the laws governing fiduciary access to digital assets in their jurisdiction, and whether the client intends to provide for the access or deletion of their digital assets and accounts.
Best Practices for Drafting Digital Asset Provisions
The will should include a clear digital asset clause specifying the client’s intent regarding:
Fiduciary access to digital assets, electronic communications, and online accounts.
A definition of digital assets.
Revocable trusts and financial powers of attorney should echo these directives.
Wills and/or revocable trusts should designate beneficiaries for each digital asset.
Never list usernames or passwords directly in a will or trust. Instead, store this information in a secure location instead.
For clients with complex digital assets, additional documents may be necessary, such as:
Instruction manuals detailing access and management procedures.
Technology management plans to optimize access and use.
As discussed above, if Online Tools are used as part of the planning process, the designated recipient named in the Online Tool or the directive provided will trump fiduciary access provisions in a will or revocable trust.
Reviewing the overall plan on a regular basis helps ensure the plan remains current and provides an opportunity to realign the plan with life changes, new digital assets, and technology platforms designed to help clients and practitioners manage digital assets.
Estate Planners: the Time to Act is Now
Digital assets must no longer be treated as an “emerging” asset class. It’s 2025 — they’ve effectively emerged. For practitioners putting off digital asset planning, make no mistake: digital asset proliferation isn’t going anywhere. The need for this type of planning will only further spike and grow more complicated. Our clients have a digital life, and we must acknowledge that managing digital footprints, devices, accounts, and assets is non-negotiable for a comprehensive estate plan.
As trusted advisors, we must keep apprised of the legal and technical developments surrounding digital assets with the same diligence we apply to staying atop legislative and tax changes that may impact planning. There is too much at stake to ignore or take lightly this growing challenge. Doing so puts our clients at risk and exposes our practices to potential liability. Our clients expect us to secure their digital legacies with a modern approach to the planning process. They expect us to help them bring order to their digital chaos.
Now, it’s time we deliver.
Private Market Talks: Driving Growth with Corbin Capital Partners’ Tracy Stuart [Podcast]
Over the past 20 years, as Managing Partner and CEO, Tracy Stuart has transformed Corbin Capital Partners from a few hundred million to over $9 billion in AUM. In this episode, we explore what has driven Corbin’s success and how its disciplined, research-focused strategy and client-centric philosophy will sustain it into the future. Tracy also shares what she has learned about leadership and offers advice to young professionals looking to make their mark in the industry.
Deep Legal: Transform Corporate Legal Practice with Client-Integrated, Real-Time Risk Monitoring Systems
The traditional practice of law has long been characterized by its reactive nature: clients call when problems arise, documents need review, or litigation looms. But what if the practice of law could be fundamentally reimagined? What if, instead of firefighters arriving after the blaze, attorneys could design sophisticated sprinkler systems that activate at the first sign of smoke?
This transformation is now possible. The advent of AI-powered legal research and analysis tools that can process vast amounts of legal information in seconds is enabling a paradigm shift from reactive counsel to proactive legal architecture. For large law firms serving enterprise clients, this represents perhaps the most significant opportunity in decades to redefine their value proposition.
The legal profession stands at an inflection point. For centuries, attorneys have served as expert navigators brought in to chart a course through troubled waters. Today, they can become architects of sophisticated systems that continuously monitor the legal seaworthiness of their clients’ operations before storms arrive. This new paradigm involves establishing what might best be described as legal security systems, integrated monitoring frameworks that continuously scan client operations for emerging legal risks, flag potential issues before they mature into problems, and provide real-time guidance on mitigation.
Much like cybersecurity systems that monitor networks for intrusions, these legal security systems vigilantly watch for potential regulatory violations, contractual exposures, compliance gaps, and litigation risks. When properly implemented, they transform the attorney’s role from crisis responder to strategic risk manager. The implications of this shift are profound. Law firms can deepen client relationships, develop more predictable revenue streams, and deliver measurably better outcomes. Clients benefit from reduced legal emergencies, lower overall legal spending, and the ability to operate with greater confidence in increasingly complex regulatory environments.
1. The Current Gap in Corporate Legal Protection
Despite significant investments in compliance programs and legal departments, most corporations operate with substantial blind spots in their legal risk management. These gaps persist for several interrelated reasons that technology is now positioned to address.
First, the volume and complexity of regulations governing modern business have expanded exponentially. A global corporation might be subject to tens of thousands of regulatory requirements across dozens of jurisdictions, many of which change frequently. No human team, regardless of size or expertise, can maintain perfect awareness of all applicable legal obligations.
Second, legal risks emerge from the everyday operations of business: contractual commitments made by sales teams, representations in marketing materials, HR decisions, operational changes, or strategic pivots. These activities occur continuously across organizational silos, often without legal review until problems surface.
Third, traditional compliance frameworks rely heavily on periodic audits, manually updated policies, and training programs that quickly become outdated. These approaches, while valuable, cannot keep pace with the dynamic nature of modern business operations.
Finally, corporate clients increasingly expect their outside counsel to function as business partners rather than specialized service providers. They seek attorneys who understand their operations intimately and who proactively identify risks before they materialize, an expectation that traditional service models struggle to fulfill.
An additional factor favoring outside counsel in this evolution is the matter of economies of scale. While in-house legal departments face continual budgetary constraints and typically focus on a single industry or company context, law firms can distribute the investment in sophisticated monitoring systems across multiple clients. By developing expertise and technical infrastructure that serves many clients in similar sectors, outside counsel can offer capabilities that would be prohibitively expensive for any single corporate legal department to build independently.
This scale advantage extends beyond technology to collective intelligence. Outside firms working across an industry accumulate insights about emerging risks, regulatory trends, and effective mitigation strategies that no single company could develop internally. These insights, when encoded into monitoring systems, create a network effect that benefits all clients served by the firm, creating an offering that in-house teams simply cannot replicate.
The result of all these factors is a protection gap that leaves even well-resourced organizations vulnerable to preventable legal challenges. The cost of this gap is measurable not just in litigation expenses and regulatory penalties, but in operational disruptions, reputational damage, and missed business opportunities due to legal uncertainty.
2. Architecting a Legal Security System
Creating an effective legal security system requires a thoughtful architecture that integrates technology, legal expertise, and client operations. While the specific design will vary based on client needs, industry context, and risk profile, certain fundamental components remain consistent.
At its core, a legal security system must establish continuous monitoring capabilities across key risk vectors. These typically include regulatory compliance, contractual obligations, intellectual property protection, employment practices, corporate governance, and industry-specific risk areas. For each vector, the system must connect the sources of potential risk and the indicators that suggest emerging issues.
The foundation of this monitoring capability is a comprehensive legal knowledge base tailored to the client’s specific operations. This knowledge base must encode not just applicable laws and regulations, but how they intersect with the client’s business model, organizational structure, and strategic objectives. It must be continuously updated as laws change and as the client’s operations evolve.
Upon this foundation, firms can implement real-time scanning of client activities against the knowledge base. This might involve reviewing internal communications, analyzing contract terms, monitoring regulatory announcements, or scanning public records for potential litigation risks. Advanced systems might incorporate predictive analytics to identify patterns that historically precede legal problems.
The most sophisticated implementations integrate directly with client systems, enabling real-time legal guidance within operational workflows. For example, a sales contract management system might automatically flag problematic terms before agreements are finalized, or a product development platform might identify potential regulatory hurdles early in the design process.
Critically, these systems must balance comprehensiveness with practicality. Flagging every theoretical legal risk would quickly overwhelm both attorneys and clients with false positives. Effective systems must establish appropriate thresholds for escalation based on risk magnitude, company risk tolerance, and operational context.
3. Implementation Strategies for Outside Counsel
Implementing a legal security system requires a structured approach that balances technological capabilities with the practicalities of client relationships and operations. For large law firms, the implementation process typically unfolds in stages, beginning with a comprehensive risk assessment and culminating in a fully integrated monitoring system.
The first step involves conducting a thorough legal risk assessment for the client organization. This goes beyond traditional legal audits to examine not just current compliance status but the dynamic processes through which legal risks emerge in day-to-day operations. The assessment should identify both the most significant risk areas and the operational contexts in which they typically arise.
Based on this assessment, firms can develop a tailored monitoring framework that prioritizes the most critical risk vectors. This framework should define what will be monitored, how frequently, using what data sources, and with what thresholds for intervention. It should also establish clear protocols for escalation when potential issues are identified.
With the monitoring framework defined, firms can begin building the necessary technological infrastructure. This would involve existing legal technology platforms, custom-developed tools, and integration with client systems. The specific technology stack will vary based on client needs and firm capabilities, but should enable automated scanning, intelligent analysis, and structured escalation.
Throughout implementation, firms must work closely with key stakeholders across the client organization. This includes not just the general counsel’s office but operational leaders whose activities will be monitored. Engaging these stakeholders early helps ensure the system addresses real-world risks, integrates with existing workflows, and gains the organizational buy-in necessary for successful adoption.
The most effective implementations follow an iterative approach, beginning with focused monitoring of high-priority risk areas and expanding over time. This allows for continuous refinement based on feedback and results, while demonstrating immediate value to clients through early wins.
4. Transforming the Business Model: From Billable Hours to Recurring Value
Perhaps the most profound implication of legal security systems is how they reshape the economics of legal practice. As AI dramatically accelerates research and analysis capabilities, many firms are facing an uncomfortable reality: traditional billable hour models increasingly put firm interests at odds with client demands for efficiency. When a task that once took ten hours can be completed in minutes (or seconds), how do firms maintain revenue while passing efficiency gains to clients?
Legal security systems offer a compelling answer. By shifting from discrete billable transactions to ongoing monitoring and risk management, firms can establish subscription-based revenue models that align incentives between counsel and client. Rather than selling time, firms sell outcomes, specifically, maintenance of legal health and early detection of potential issues before they become costly problems.
This model recognizes that legal expertise is most valuable when applied preventatively and continuously, not just during crises. Clients gain predictable legal costs and better outcomes, while firms secure more stable revenue streams and deeper client relationships. The subscription approach also values the significant upfront investment required to build effective monitoring systems, the expertise, knowledge base development, and tech infrastructure that make real-time legal guidance possible.
For firms accustomed to hourly billing, this transition requires both strategic vision and practical execution. Most successful implementations begin with hybrid approaches: maintaining hourly billing for certain services while establishing subscription components for continuous monitoring and preventative counsel. Over time, as both firms and clients grow comfortable with the new model, the subscription elements can expand to encompass broader aspects of the relationship.
Closing Thoughts
The question isn’t whether AI will transform how we deliver legal services to our corporate clients; it’s whether your firm will lead this transformation or struggle to catch up. Legal security systems represent more than just an innovation; they embody a fundamental reimagining of the attorney-client relationship.
Throughout my career, I’ve watched countless innovations promise to revolutionize legal practice, but few have offered such clear and compelling benefits to both law firms and their clients. By embedding our expertise within the daily operations of our clients, we not only protect them more effectively but elevate our own practice from transactional service provider to indispensable strategic partner. The firms that master this approach will define the next generation of legal excellence.
The path to implementation doesn’t require massive infrastructure investments or wholesale practice redesigns. It starts with identifying a single high-value area where continuous monitoring could demonstrably benefit a key client. Perhaps it’s tracking regulatory changes affecting a specific business unit, monitoring contractual compliance across a supply chain, or providing real-time guidance for recurring transaction types. Start small, demonstrate value, and build from there.
I encourage you to take that first step this quarter. Identify one client relationship where this approach could strengthen your position as trusted counsel. Arrange a conversation about their most pressing legal concerns and explore how continuous monitoring might address them more effectively than traditional approaches. You may be surprised by how receptive clients are to this evolution; after all, they’ve been waiting for their law firms to embrace the same data-driven approach that has transformed their own operations. Exceed client expectations and deepen your relationships with “Deep Legal.”