Inside the Legal Industry’s AI Arms Race
In 2025, it is nearly impossible to find a sector that has not, in some way, incorporated AI into its core work processes. Few sectors, however, have seen their operations transformed as dramatically as the field of law. Time-consuming routine work such as drafting documents, sorting files for electronic discovery, and conducting legal research can be assisted, and in some cases completed, using AI. Based upon a recent survey indicating a majority of lawyers use AI, it seems fair to assume that most law firms utilize AI in some capacity. However, a few firms have taken exceptional strides. Here is an overview of some of those firms, organized alphabetically:
Adams & Reese: In 2025, this Louisiana-based Am Law 200 firm named Everlaw its sole litigation platform. Adams & Reese now uses Everlaw’s built-in “AI Assistant” for clustering, search, and the creation of auto-timelines. Since the implementation of Everlaw’s assistance, law firm leadership has reported sizable reductions in document-review hours and significantly faster turnaround times.
A&O Shearman: In 2025, A&O Shearman offered the Harvey AI assistant to its more than 3,500 employees, becoming the first Big Law firm to do so. The firm uses this tool, which leadership called a “game-changer,” for contract analysis, multilingual drafting, and regulatory horizon-scanning. In addition, every AI output is audited by humans, reinforcing accountability.
Baker McKenzie: In the last few years, this global firm has been, in its own words, “piloting” the integration of large language models (LLMs) in its workflow to generate drafts, review contracts, and conduct legal research. The firm also prides itself on being an early adopter of AI e-discovery technology. Baker McKenzie emphasizes client-by-client sandboxing to align with custom data-security requirements.
Cooley LLP: This firm developed its own proprietary, in-house cloud-based AI platform known as Vanilla. Vanilla is designed to help its over 750 investment fund clients stay in compliance with federal securities laws. In addition, Cooley launched Cooley GObot, an AI-powered chatbot that is integrated into the “Cooley GO” resource hub for startups. To signal its commitment to evolving technology, in March of 2025, Cooley released a manifesto on its use of AI, which emphasized quality, ethics, and transparency.
Cuatrecasas: Proving that AI innovation is not solely the province of US firms, this Spain-based international firm initially rolled out the Harvey AI assistant to 100 of its attorneys before expanding access to its 1,200 lawyers across 26 offices. The firm has since branded its in-house version of the tool as CelIA (Cuatrecasas Expert Legal AI), which it uses to analyze complex contracts and generate thorough first drafts.
Dentons: The largest law firm in the world (by headcount) has its own secure GPT-4 environment, FleetAI. This tool allows for quicker first drafts and instant answers to legal queries. Dentons is currently working on making this model customer-facing and integrating it into more aspects of its practice. To regulate the use of FleetAI, company rules dictate that data is deleted after 30 days, attorneys must notify clients when using AI, and verify all output.
DLA Piper: A global powerhouse co-headquartered in Chicago and London, DLA Piper was an early adopter of AI, integrating Casetext’s “CoCounsel” model in 2023. This model assists attorneys in a range of tasks, including legal research, document review, contract analysis, and brief drafting. DLA Piper’s chair of AI practice, Daniel Tobey, emphasized the importance of AI to the practice, noting that “[t]his is an arms race, and you don’t want to be the last law firm with these tools. It’s very easy to become a dinosaur these days.” In addition to its partnership with CoCounsel, DLA Piper has begun exploring other legal-AI tools, such as Harvey and Bloomberg’s GPT model, to offer clients the best service.
Fisher & Phillips: This Atlanta-based firm, specializing in employment law, not only utilizes CoCounsel but also helped design this tool. The firm says that since adopting CoCounsel, it has completed research tasks, which once took hours, in just minutes
Gunderson Dettmer: In 2023, this Silicon Valley-based firm, specializing in technology, released its generative-AI chat app ChatGD. Through this model, which it describes as a marriage of “in-house legal expertise with cutting-edge engineering and technology,” attorneys can upload contracts, analyze contracts, and ask legal queries.
Holland & Knight: This Tampa-based firm is taking a slightly different route than its competitors, developing its own in-house AI. This initiative is being led by partner and self-taught coder Josias Dewey. Once released, this AI agent will assist lawyers in reviewing and editing complex financial agreements, as well as standardize and speed up contract review.
KPMG Law US: After Arizona began allowing non-lawyers to own law firms through its Alternative Business Structure (ABS), KPMG Law became the first Big Four accounting firm-owned law firm in the U.S. KPMG has pitched itself as a tech-driven alternative to traditional firms and plans to utilize AI agents to assist in high-volume contract management, contract-remediation projects, and M&A contract harmonization. KPMG has also emphasized its hybrid structure, where AI outputs will be reviewed by experienced lawyers. On a broader level, KPMG is a proof of concept that non-traditional players can break into the legal industry by effectively utilizing AI and technology.
Macfarlanes: In 2023, the London-based firm launched a pilot program giving 70 of its attorneys the chance to use Harvey’s legal AI tool. By 2025, 80% of the company was using the tool in their daily work. This year, Macfarlanes launched “Amplify,” a custom workflow platform powered by Harvey that utilizes the law firm’s expertise to automate routine tasks, such as document interrogation, contract review, and data extraction.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe: This San Francisco-based firm was an early beta user of Casetext’s “CoCounsel” model. The firm claims it uses the tool for first-pass research and contract review, allowing attorneys to focus their energy on higher-value tasks. In addition, Orrick’s innovation team hosts podcasts and events on AI innovation and risk, highlighting its expertise and commitment to legal AI.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati: In 2024, this Palo Alto-based firm announced a partnership with legal-AI startup Dioptra to launch an AI-powered contract-review system through its internal technology platform “Neuron.” The Dioptra model, now available to clients for a fixed fee, boasts a 92% accuracy rate on third-party contracts. The technology works by finding and adjusting clauses with minimal red-lining, meaning that only small human adjustments are needed.
This is, by nature, an incomplete list. The number of law firms incorporating AI in their practice is growing exponentially, and new advances are coming every month. While we are still in a moment when AI is a tool servicing the existing structure of the legal profession (with familiar law firms and professional roles), very soon, a moment will occur when AI starts to restructure the profession itself.
Integration Without Access: What Harvey’s Lexis Deal Really Delivers
This article is a slightly modified version of my weekly newsletter, Attorney Intelligence.
Last week, the legal AI world was buzzing about Harvey’s much-anticipated integration with LexisNexis. Adding Lexis’ complete repository of legal case data promised to be a big step forward in functionality for Harvey’s platform.
Unfortunately, the end result might not be quite what it was hyped up to be. According to sources who’ve seen demos of the new integration, Harvey’s access to the Lexis data set is much more limited than many expected.
In this article, we’ll cover:
Why legal AI companies need data access
How Harvey’s Lexis integration actually works
The incentives of the various players
How this problem ultimately gets resolved
Let’s dive in.
Keys to the Kingdom
Legal AI companies face a serious problem: lawyers won’t trust AI that can’t cite real cases.
Without access to primary sources, Harvey, Legora, and every other legal AI platform will always be fundamentally limited. These platforms have beautiful interfaces, integrate with Word, and enable lawyers to work with internal documents and publicly available data sources like EDGAR. But to achieve their ambitions – revolutionizing the practice of law – it’s essential that they acquire complete, robust, and reliable repositories of case data.
The real power in legal research lies with three companies: Thomson Reuters (Westlaw), LexisNexis, and vLex. They control the comprehensive databases of case law, statutes, regulations, and — crucially — the editorial enhancements like headnotes and citations that make legal research actually work.
vLex was recently taken off the table in their $1B acquisition by Clio.
This is why Harvey’s partnership with Lexis generated so much excitement. Finally, a leading AI platform would have access to one of the remaining “big two” legal databases.
The end result, while a step in the right direction for Harvey, is far from the silver bullet many hoped it would be.
What the Lexis Integration Actually Does
In a nutshell, Harvey’s Lexis integration works as follows:
You type a legal research query into Harvey
Harvey forwards your query to Lexis AI
Lexis AI searches Lexis’ database and generates an answer
Harvey displays that answer in its interface
This does offer some immediate benefits: Harvey users can now access Lexis data without switching platforms, making it easier to incorporate Lexis search data into broader workflows.
The problem is, Harvey has no access to the underlying data. It can’t train on Lexis’ corpus. It can’t even see how Lexis generates its answers. Harvey’s interface has essentially become a nice wrapper for Lexis’ own AI product.
The Ceiling on “Lexis Inside”
To put it simply, if Harvey is stuck sipping through the straw of Lexis AI, its outputs can never be better than what Lexis can give it. For a company that positions itself as being at the cutting edge, this is a very meaningful limitation.
With a more comprehensive integration, we’d see:
Unified reasoning across Harvey’s AI and Lexis’ data
The ability to train or fine-tune custom models on case law
Seamless blending of internal knowledge and public law
A single AI brain with access to everything
Unfortunately, what materialized looks more like an API forwarding service.
Don’t get me wrong, this is still a positive for Harvey’s product and will likely add value for their users. But there is nothing fundamentally new here: Lexis customers already had access to this information; it’s merely available in a different interface. And Harvey’s restricted access limits their ability to continue building on top of the Lexis data.
The Siri Lesson
Last year, Apple realized it had an AI problem. Google and OpenAI had jumped out ahead, and while progress on their internal AI models was progressing slowly, the public demanded a solution – fast.
In December 2024, at the launch of Apple Intelligence, Apple announced it had integrated ChatGPT into Siri. Now, users would be able to leverage the cutting-edge intelligence of ChatGPT directly from their iPhones.
Anyone with an iPhone probably knows how this story ends.
In reality, Siri became a forwarding service for the ChatGPT API, with very little “integration” beyond that. The resulting product was hardly more convenient (and in many ways worse) than going directly to ChatGPT.
That doesn’t mean that Harvey’s Lexis integration will follow the same fate. But it is a cautionary tale in how these partnerships can go wrong if they aren’t thoughtfully executed and deeply integrated.
Why the Vault Stays Shut
Why won’t Lexis give Harvey full data access? Simple: their entire business relies on the value of that data.
LLMs are commoditizing fast. Anyone with a credit card can start building on top of them.
But legal databases? Those take decades to build. The headnotes, Shepard’s citations, and editorial analysis represent millions of hours of attorney work that can’t be replicated overnight. And law firms have extremely high standards for the quality and completeness of the data. Even 99% market coverage is insufficient – that remaining 1% can cause disastrous outcomes. Something very close to “absolute completeness” is required.
Lexis simply doesn’t have adequate skin in the game to throw open the gates to their data set. Their equity investment in Harvey is small relative to Harvey’s massive $5B valuation. Meanwhile, Lexis’ own business would be put at risk by giving Harvey full access to their data. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there’s no putting it back.
So – at least as of today – Lexis has chosen to keep the vault locked: no corpus access, no training data, no editorial logic.
How This Gets Solved
There’s an incredible amount of pressure (and dollars) driving Harvey, Legora, and the other legal AI companies to acquire case data.
There are only two realistic solutions to solving this problem:
Option 1: Buy your way in. The cheapest option, vLex, was just taken off the table by Clio. Since Lexis and Westlaw are too large to acquire, this probably involves a very large, expensive partnership that ties the financial fates of the two companies. It’s not clear whether the financial incentives exist for this type of deal to get done.
Option 2: Build your own. There are many smaller vendors who have some portion of the total data. An enterprising startup with lots of time and money could buy or license a few of these and cobble together the rest. Harvey recently announced a data licensing deal with Wolters Kluwer that looks like a step in this direction. This is also the path I’d expect Legora to pursue.
This is a steep product and business challenge. Whoever can solve it first will have a meaningful edge in the legal AI wars.
All of the views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of The National Law Review.
Finding an Expert Witness: Best Practices for Finding Credible Experts
In court, cases often come down to the “battle of the experts” and the credibility and character of experts can make or break a case. When you need an expert witness for your case, where do you turn?
The facts of your case will determine which type of expert or experts will be required. Case law has repeatedly ruled that people who are skilled in their particular fields can be designated as experts if their knowledge, experience, training, or education is relevant to the case and can help the judge or jury.
Experts are used in civil and criminal cases, and in almost any field or specialty, covering disciplines in various legal sectors like products liability, intellectual property, employment, industrial, personal injury, construction, financial, taxes, and more.
For example, if you need an expert in bread making for a case involving an illness, a person who has a degree in food science, has published in relevant industry journals, owns patents to novel ingredients, and worked in the industry for over 20 years, would likely be accepted as an expert.
Whether you need an oncologist, a mechanical engineer, a statistician, or a meteorologist, a good first stop is to try the online legal platforms you likely know well, Lexis and Westlaw. Lexis Context provides almost every specialty one could imagine, lists members in the field who’ve been involved in expert witness work, and whether or not they have a plaintiff or defense leaning. There is also a section for Daubert challenges and case opinions. If you don’t have access to Context, the Expert Materials section Lexis should have comparable information presented in a slightly different format.
Another good choice is Westlaw Expert Materials which allows you to search by state or specialty, and you can limit by document type (transcript, CV, report). One good way to use both of these databases is to create a search for your relevant terms and look at case opinions, discovery, and trial court documents to see who is listed as an expert and who is on the opposing side. Such online resources are good places to build an initial list of expert witness candidates. But that is just the first step—those candidates must undergo rigorous additional vetting.
Other options for potential candidates are online witness databases with experts listed that can be searched across different specialties, e.g., SEAK (covers wide variety of specialties), as well as specialty-specific sites, e.g., ARCCA for technical disciplines, such as biomechanics, failure analysis, etc. Some groups require a fee, but many are no cost. Social media such as LinkedIn can also be a good source to check – think what kind of company the expert you need would be employed and search on those types of businesses.
If you are not happy with your online search tool results, check the professional networks and associations in the relevant industries. The people in leadership positions are often those who are active and involved in the industry. Look for industry newsletters, blogs, online articles, or books by those in your field. The authors are likely specialists on the topic and may be a good fit. Depending on your timeframe, you may be able to attend a conference or seminar in the specific area needed. Speakers at conferences will already have experience in talking to a group so they shouldn’t be daunted by a jury.
Another good pool of potential candidates is the academic institutions across the country. Professors and researchers will not only be knowledgeable, but also have experience teaching others about the field. Be sure to consider the trade and vocational / technical schools as well to cover certain areas of expertise. The technical education teacher will likely have the knowledge you need, as well as training in the topic, and be a good educator to explain concepts to a judge or jury. You may also need to confirm if their institution has a policy about extracurricular work.
Don’t forget about referrals. If you reach out to potential candidates and they cannot work with you, be sure to ask if they know someone who can. They are already in the niche you need, so maybe one of their colleagues can assist. Speaking of colleagues, check with others in your own firm, or a firm with whom you work, who may have had similar situations and ask for a referral. It’s always nice to have a name to mention when you contact the possible expert.
Illinois Employers Get Ready—Busy Equal Pay Reporting Season Is Coming
According to the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL), thousands of employers filed for their first Illinois Equal Pay Registration Certificate (EPRC) between mid-2023 and early 2024. Since employers are required to renew these certificates every two years, that means thousands of employers are already facing a submission deadline to ensure EPRC compliance.
Quick Hits
In 2021, Illinois amended its Equal Pay Act of 2003, requiring covered employers to submit demographic and wage data to the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) to obtain an Equal Pay Registration Certificate (EPRC).
Employers that have one hundred or more Illinois employees must obtain an EPRC.
An employer’s EPRC must be renewed every two years.
Employers must count employees physically working in Illinois, as well as fully remote employees who report to management in Illinois, to determine if they must file the EPRC application.
For the 2025 submission cycle, the IDOL has made a few changes to the data template and submission process.
EPRC Renewals
In early 2025, the IDOL presented webinars discussing the history of EPRC filings, the changes for the 2025 EPRC renewals, and the highlights of its increased enforcement efforts. This information suggests that more than 70 percent of EPRC renewals will be due in late 2025 and in the spring of 2026. As employers begin to prepare for these renewals, here are several factors to consider:
All 2025 renewals will be based on data from calendar year 2024, which means that the submission work can begin now even if the renewal deadline is later in 2025.
There are new requirements for 2025 filings, which will require additional data and work on the employer side compared to the initial filing cycle.
In late 2023, when many employers filed their initial EPRC applications, there were many filing site disruptions. While these were eventually resolved and the filing platform was updated in the spring of 2025, it seems possible that there could be filing platform issues again in late 2025.
Based on these factors, employers that have a renewal due in 2025 may want to prepare a plan for their EPRC renewal now to avoid issues later in the renewal process.
New EPRC Filers
Employers with Illinois employees that have not previously obtained an EPRC certificate can look to the IDOL’s frequently asked questions (FAQs) guidance on the EPRC to determine if they are required to file a first-time EPRC application in 2025.
Updates for 2025
All employers that are filing their EPRC materials may want to note that the data template has been updated to include information about whether an employee is paid on an hourly or salaried basis and whether an employee is covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The required compliance statement is also now included in the employer portal and does not need to be uploaded as a separate document.
Unlocking the Power of Legal Directories: A Guide for US Lawyers
Part I
For law firms looking to build reputation, attract clients, and secure an advantage in the competitive legal market, one tool often overlooked—or misunderstood—is the legal directory. Directories like Chambers and Partners and The Legal 500 play a significant role in shaping external perceptions of legal expertise. But how do these rankings work? Who reads them? And should your law firm invest time, money, and effort in using them?
In this two-part series on legal directories for lawyers in US corporate practice, we will firstly provide a basic background on the major directories, explain why these rankings matter, and look at who uses them.
In part two of this series, we give helpful tips for navigating the complex world of directory submissions and the benefits of working with expert external consultants along the way. They can act as strategic advisors to help focus your time and resources as well as shepherd your lawyers and BD teams through the legal directory submission process.
Our ultimate objective is to provide high-level guidance so that lawyers and law firms can better understand legal directory rankings and navigate the submissions process with confidence.
Meet the Legal Directories
There are several dozen nationally recognized legal directories available, see the link here for a full explanation of legal rankings.
Below is a summary of the most widely recognised legal directories, although there are also directories that only rank specific practice areas such as IP law.:
Chambers and Partners
Known for its deep research methodology and extensive interviews, Chambers ranks both law firms and individual lawyers by practice area and jurisdiction. Its coverage spans the US (by city, state and nationwide), and rest of the world. Chambers ranks law firms and lawyers using a “Band” system – from 1(Highest) to 6 (Lowest) and has establishing its methodology as a definitive mark of excellence for lawyers in their respective fields for specialty or for overall law firm achievement. Chambers employs a rigorous internal scoring system incorporating work matters and feedback from “referees”. Referees are individuals, predominantly current clients, who vouch for the quality of a particular law firm and lawyer’s work on a confidential and anonymous basis. Here are some key insights from a recent webinar into gaining and improving your Chambers rankings.
The Legal 500
The Legal 500 evaluates firms based on submissions, client feedback, and market research. While similar in global scope to Chambers, ranking by city and nationwide, its presentation style and editorial tone are more commercially focused. There is more weight given to submissions for Legal 500 rankings. In addition, the Legal 500 offers more in terms of legal awards, the Green Guide for ESG orientated lawyers and firms and industry events for law firms to participate in. Join this Q&A with Legal 500 Editors to learn more.
Best Lawyers
A peer-reviewed directory, Best Lawyers relies on lawyer nominations and feedback rather than firm submissions. Its focus is on the US and Canada, and it often feeds into U.S. News – Best Law Firms rankings, which combine peer reviews with client surveys. This focuses recognition for local and national law firms and lawyers.
Here is a comprehensive guide to the Legal Directory Rankings.
Who Actually Reads Legal Directories?
Legal directories aren’t only vanity metrics. In fact, 97% of law firms in a Chambers survey stated a legal ranking increased their ability to win new clients or justify higher fees. Legal 500’s recent survey of 2,536 corporate general counsel indicated that 49% of such GC’s who participated in the survey consulted the Legal 500 directory on at least a monthly basis. Moreover, 69% of GC’s interviewed in that survey referred to a legal directory recommendation before retaining a law firm.
General Counsel
GC’s rely on directories when entering unfamiliar jurisdictions or hiring for niche expertise. A survey by Legal 500 showed over 60% of GC respondents use directories in the decision-making process. Chambers states that 89% of in-house counsel respondents say rankings influence which firm is awarded work.
Business Owners and CEOs
Especially in industries without in-house legal teams, executives turn to these rankings to validate legal credentials and assess risk. 69% of respondents to the Legal 500 survey referred to a legal directory before engaging a law firm in a new matter.
Recruitment and Retention
Firms expanding practice areas or geographies often look for lateral talent through directories. Internally, investing in building junior associate and partner rankings demonstrates a firm’s commitment to career progression, which improves morale and retention.
Not convinced? Find out why you should participate, if they are worth the investment, and more statistics about who uses the legal directories (beyond the obvious) here.
Conclusion
Legal directory rankings aren’t just accolades. They remain a powerful form of validation, strengthening both firm credibility and individual lawyer reputations. Legal rankings are business development tools, recruitment assets, and crucial for brand/reputation management. Understanding more about how each directory works and what they value can make the difference between elevating your rankings and being overlooked.
In the second part of this two-part series, we will cover how to approach the legal directory process, navigate directory submissions and explore why hiring an expert consultant is beneficial to you and your law firm.
August 2025 Legal News: Law Firm News, Industry Awards and Recognition and Women in Law
Thank you for reading The National Law Review’s legal news roundup, highlighting the latest law firm news! Please read below for the latest in law firm news and industry expansion, legal industry awards, recognition and women in the legal field.
Law Firm News
Barnes & Thornburg LLP announced that Seth Mailhot, a former compliance officer and investigator at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), joined the firm’s Washington, D.C., office as a partner.
Bringing over 20 years of expertise in navigating FDA regulations and leading regulatory practices, Mr. Malihot advises clients across the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, food and consumer product sectors. His focus includes premarket approvals, labeling, quality system compliance and product recalls.
“Seth brings invaluable insight into FDA decision-making and how to manage regulatory risk in fast-moving markets,” said Healthcare Industry practice chair John Kelly. “His arrival enhances our ability to deliver practical guidance to healthcare and life sciences clients across the country.”
Tristan A. Dollinger joined von Briesen & Roper, s.c., as a Shareholder in the firm’s Milwaukee office. Mr. Dollinger will practice in the Business and Corporate Law and Health Law Sections.
Having extensive experience in representing assisted living, long-term care, physical and occupational therapy and surgical practices, Mr. Dollinger assists clients with mergers and acquisitions, regulatory compliance and transactions.
Mr. Dollinger is a member of the State Bar of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Bar Association and the American Bar Association. He has also been recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America in Corporate Governance and Compliance Law from 2022-2025.
Hogan Lovells announced the addition of Elizabeth Jungman as a partner in the firm’s Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology practice in the Washington, D.C., office.
Joining the firm from the FDA, Ms. Jungman brings deep experience after serving as Chief of Staff to the FDA Commissioner and Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Office of Regulatory Policy. Her roles included advising senior agency officials on drug policy development, as well as overseeing day-to–day management of the agency.
In addition, Ms. Jungman is a nationally recognized thought leader in drug regulatory policy, building a career focused on the application of pharmaceutical regulations and laws. This makes her uniquely qualified to assist clients with regulatory issues.
“Bringing on Elizabeth further strengthens our capabilities to provide strategic counsel on the most complex challenges facing pharmaceutical and biotech companies today,” Lynn Mehler, Head of the firm’s Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology practice, said. “Elizabeth has long been recognized as a go-to policy guru within the pharmaceutical regulatory space, with deep experience in the cutting edge regulatory issues that are top-of-mind for many of our clients. She will be an invaluable asset across the practice.”
Legal Industry Awards and Recognition
Blank Rome LLP announced that nine attorneys from the firm’s Government Contracts group were appointed to leadership roles in the American Bar Association’s Public Contract Law Section for the 2025–2026 term.
The attorneys include:
Robyn Burrows: Vice-Chair – Contract Claims & Disputes; Vice-Chair –Cybersecurity, Privacy and Emerging Technology
Dominique Casimir: Vice-Chair – Debarment & Suspension
Justin Chiarodo: Vice-Chair – Acquisition Reform & Emerging Issues; Vice-Chair – Contract Claims & Dispute
Stephanie Harden: Co-Chair – Accounting, Cost & Pricing
Elizabeth Jochum: Co-Chair – Bid Protest; Co-Chair – Annual Conferences (FPI)
Luke Meier: Vice-Chair – Bid Protest; Vice-Chair – Procurement Fraud & False Claims
Jennifer Short: Co-Chair – Procurement Fraud & False Claims; Vice-Chair – Debarment & Suspension
Samarth Barot: Vice-Chair – Procurement Fraud & False Claims
David Bodner: Co-Chair – Intellectual Property; Vice-Chair – Bid Protest; Vice-Chair – Contract Claims & Disputes
The section provides balanced recommendations on procurement policy, providing a forum for colleagues to engage and gain insights into federal and local public contract law.
Andy Monk, partner at Bracewell LLP, will be honored as a “On the Rise” lawyer at the 2025 Texas Legal Awards in September by Texas Lawyer. The awards highlight achievements across the state’s legal industry.
Mr. Monk is honored with a select group of lawyers under the age of 40 who are influential in their practice areas both in Texas and beyond. His practice focuses on representing public and private companies in securities and corporate transactions.
Goodwin Procter LLP announced that partner April Sun is one of California’s Top Labor & Employment Lawyers by the Daily Journal. The annual list honors lawyers in the state who have made significant contributions to labor and employment law through career achievements and wins.
Ms. Sun, a partner in the Employment practice and Trade Secrets, Employee Mobility & Non-Competes group in the firm’s San Francisco office, has obtained successful results for clients in various fields. Including venture capital and private equity, she focuses her practice on employment discrimination, harassment and employee mobility cases. She has represented clients at both the state and federal level.
Women in Law
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP announced that Lauren Smyth was named a finalist by the 2025 Texas Legal Awards in the Best Mentors category.
Ms. Smyth focuses her practice primarily on commercial real estate. She represents sellers, buyers, landlords and tenants in the operation and acquisition of commercial properties. Her experience ranges from the creation of large-scale condominium regimes to complex lease negotiations.
Amber Ahmed, Of Counsel at Beveridge & Diamond PC, was one of 43 legal professionals elected to the 8th Leadership Class of The Institute for Energy Law (IEL). The organization cultivates industry expertise and leadership by bringing together energy professionals to strengthen collaboration and communication skills.
Ms. Ahmed, a former Assistant Attorney General in the Environmental Protection Division for the Texas Office of the Attorney General, represents clients in regulatory compliance and environmental litigation. This includes enforcement actions under state and federal environmental laws.
“I’m honored to be recognized by IEL and excited to join the 8th Leadership Class,” Ahmed said. “I look forward to engaging with my fellow participants and gaining valuable perspectives to enhance how I support B&D clients.”
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP announced that Regina Readling is rejoining the firm as a partner in its New York office and Executive Compensation Group.
“S&C advises clients on the most complex and high profile deals of the day,” said Ms. Readling. “I’m excited to rejoin the firm where I started as a lawyer and look forward to continuing to work alongside an incredibly talented group of colleagues on market-leading transactions.”
Ms. Readling focuses her practice on mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings, divestitures and other strategic transactions. In addition, she advises a wide range of well-known clients, from Amazon.com to The Kroger Company and The Home Depot.
“We’re delighted to welcome Regina back to our firm,” said Sullivan & Cromwell Co-Chairs Robert Giuffra and Scott Miller. “Our compensation practice is critical to the success of our unmatched public company transactional practice. The addition of Regina, who is a leading executive compensation partner and has worked with so many S&C teams throughout her career, is an exceptional opportunity to enhance our transactional practice.”
How to Use AI Without Sacrificing Firm Credibility
AI is transforming how legal professionals perform research and draft documents. But effective adoption depends on precision and human oversight. Law firms can significantly benefit from AI-powered tools, provided they are used intentionally.
What happens when team members lean too heavily on generative AI? Here are some common “tells” that reveal when the work isn’t fully human:
A sudden surge in em dashes – : text like this: — — —
Overused rhetorical couplets, like: “It’s not just __, it’s __.”
These often sound like motivational posters rather than thoughtful commentary.
For example:
” Leadership isn’t just a role—it’s a responsibility”
“Learning isn’t just absorbing—it’s transforming.”
Random bolding mid‑sentence, especially with no clear reason.
Vague or overly motivational phrases that lack substance or specificity.
Overly long, unnaturally formal prose, especially in contexts where people tend to be more casual, like internal emails.
These patterns may seem subtle, but readers intuitively pick up on them. They send an unintended message: someone is outsourcing their thinking. This is especially risky when attorneys represent the firm in client communications, strategic content, or pleadings.
Recent incidents underscore the stakes:
In Mata v. Avianca, Inc., plaintiff’s counsel was sanctioned in June 2023 after submitting a brief that cited six fake legal authorities generated by ChatGPT. The court imposed a $5,000 sanction once the fabricated cases were exposed.
In July 2025, a bankruptcy attorney at a U.S. firm was fined $5,500 and required to attend mandatory AI training after a judge found that four case citations in his filing did not exist and had been created by ChatGPT.
Also in July 2025, three attorneys at a major firm defending the Alabama prison system were sanctioned for reckless reliance on ChatGPT-generated legal citations. U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco said, “In simpler terms, the citations were completely made up.” The attorneys were ordered removed from the case and referred to the state bar.
Law firms must be proactive when it comes to AI. One careless filing can damage credibility, expose malpractice risk, and spark punitive sanctions.
Why It Matters to Law Firm Leaders
From marketing content and proposal responses to internal training materials, every document contributes to your firm’s reputation. When writing feels too generic or AI-generated, it can erode:
Professional credibility: Clients expect thoughtful, original communication.
Internal standards: Team members may imitate sloppy form if it’s tolerated.
Brand consistency: Inconsistent messaging makes your firm sound fragmented. Your writing should reflect the ideas of your best partners, not a chatbot.
Malpractice exposure: Courts and ethics boards now hold lawyers responsible if AI-generated errors appear in pleadings or filings.
Accountability: Unclear responsibility can lead to disagreements over errors found in important documents.
Client trust: Even small lapses can make clients question your diligence or reliability.
These are not only stylistic issues; they are governance concerns. Careless or inconsistent writing across emails, pleadings, presentations, social media posts, and internal documents can result in loss of efficiency, delay of business development efforts, and unnecessary friction within teams.
How can your law firm rein in “AI vernacular” while enjoying the fruits of innovation?
Create clear style standards: Define and provide examples of your preferred voice, tone, and formatting. Include practical guidance on what to avoid: excessive em dashes, vague motivational language, empty statements, and random formatting.
Implement peer review: Ensure that any public-facing content or client deliverables get a second set of human eyes before they go out.
Educate your team: Make clear that AI is a tool, rather than a substitute for legal judgment. Emphasize diligent fact-checking and thoughtful editing.
Monitor stylistic shifts: If someone’s writing suddenly changes (longer sentences, inflated diction, strange formatting), it may be worth reviewing their workflow.
Use mistakes as training opportunities: When AI-generated content misses the mark, use it as a moment to strengthen your team’s awareness of voice, audience, and accuracy.
Benefits of Intentional AI Adoption
Trust. Maintaining your firm’s authentic voice builds trust. Audiences recognize when writing is specific, professional, and tailored to their needs. Conversely, relying solely on AI-generated text will make it harder to establish a reputation as an expert, in part because one is always rehashing old ideas rather than leading the conversation.
Integrity. Whether you’re drafting a blog post on litigation tactics or a memo about firmwide strategy changes, your writing should read as if it were personally written in your own words. This helps the firm’s voice remain recognizable, relatable, and unique. After all, you don’t want your firm to just sound like “AI-Generated Company #1,642.” (There are enough of those already.) You want it to sound like the talented people who make the firm what it is. Your audience will recognize that your company remains genuine and doesn’t take shortcuts.
Growth. Rigorous editorial processes develop internal talent. There is no replacement for doing the work. When associates, paralegals, and marketing staff receive feedback and review, they grow in clarity and purpose.
Bottom Line
Using AI is smart. Producing written content that feels empty, inauthentic, or verbose is not. When your firm’s content starts to sound canned, people’s eyes glaze over, and your professional reputation can suffer.
You can preserve the benefits of AI (speed, structure, initial draft generation) without letting your message become generic or hollow. The key is straightforward: publish a standard, employ a review process, and preserve your firm’s character.
To help you get started, we’ve included a checklist and a training memo below.
Quick Checklist for Reviewing Content
Before publishing anything, run this quick check to ensure your content reflects the firm’s voice and meets quality standards:
____ Does the document avoid overused or repeated phrases? (Example: “It’s not just … It’s …”)
____ Are em dashes (—) used sparingly and only when appropriate?
____ Is bolding purposeful and consistent?
____ Is the tone clear and professional, avoiding cliché, vague, or empty phrasing?
____ Have all factual claims and citations been verified manually?
____ Has the piece been peer-reviewed by someone with knowledge of firm voice and standards?
Example Training Memo
To: All Attorneys, Paralegals, Marketing Team
From: [Supervising Partner]
Subject: Guidelines for Using AI Tools in Drafting and Research
Dear Team,
As AI tools become part of our drafting processes, this memo outlines the firm’s expectations to maintain quality, reduce risk, and ensure consistency across the firm. AI may assist, but not replace. Use generative AI tools to draft, summarize, or outline, but never submit AI output without reviewing every element carefully.
Verify all citations. If an AI tool suggests case law or precedent, confirm it across LexisNexis, Westlaw, or official reporters. Never assume AI is accurate.
Maintain tone and voice. While AI may help generate draft language, revise to match our firm’s preferred style: direct, clear, client-focused.
Use internal review. All client-facing or public documents created using AI must be reviewed by at least one peer before finalization.
Report promptly. If you discover an AI-generated error (fake citation, misquote, factual issue) either edit it (if it’s in your own document) or notify your supervisor immediately so we can address it before submission.
By following these practices, we benefit from the advantages of AI, but also uphold our standards of precision, professionalism, and accountability.
Thank you for your attention and dedication to maintaining our firm’s quality and credibility.
[Name]
Final Thoughts
AI is here to stay. The way your firm uses this technology will determine whether it drives your competitive edge or undermines your reputation. Law firm leaders can capitalize on the speed and power of AI by setting clear standards, consistently reinforcing the firm’s distinctive voice, and stressing individual accountability throughout the process.
Lessons from Lincoln for Legal Professionals
Abraham Lincoln is most commonly celebrated for his presidency, but before he ever entered the White House, he built a formidable reputation as a trial lawyer in Illinois. Over nearly three decades in legal practice, Lincoln participated in thousands of cases ranging from land disputes to high-profile criminal trials. His methods, marked by diligence, clarity, moral integrity, and strategic storytelling, continue to serve as a benchmark for legal professionals today. For expert witnesses and attorneys alike, Lincoln’s legal legacy offers enduring wisdom that is remarkably applicable in modern courtrooms.
This article explores the essential takeaways from Lincoln’s legal practice that today’s legal experts can apply in litigation, testimony, and the pursuit of justice.
1. Ground Every Case in Facts and Relatable Narratives
Lincoln instinctively understood the persuasive power of narrative. Jurors respond not merely to legal argument but to stories they can understand and empathize with. Rather than delivering abstract legal points, Lincoln created vivid, humanized accounts of events.
In the 1858 trial of William “Duff” Armstrong, Abraham Lincoln secured an acquittal for the young man accused of murder by using a quiet but powerful piece of evidence: an almanac. The prosecution’s key witness, Charles Allen, claimed he had seen Armstrong strike the victim, James Metzker, with a weapon, by the light of the moon. Lincoln calmly introduced an 1857 astronomical almanac, which showed that the moon was low in the sky at the time of the alleged crime and would not have provided enough light for a clear view. Rather than directly attacking the witness, Lincoln let the facts undermine the credibility of the testimony, allowing the jury to visualize the impossibility of the claim on their own.1,2
Modern legal experts can adopt this same storytelling mindset. Presenting evidence in a coherent and relatable sequence helps jurors, who are often laypersons, stay engaged and comprehend technical material. In expert testimony, well-chosen metaphors and illustrative examples, combined with modern tools such as visual timelines and 3D reconstructions, enhance the narrative and anchor the facts.
2. Know the Opposition as Well as Your Case
Lincoln’s reputation as a masterful advocate stemmed from thorough preparation and a deep understanding of both sides of an issue. He famously said, “When I am getting ready to reason with a man, I spend one‑third of my time thinking about myself and what I am going to say—and two‑thirds thinking about him and what he is going to say.”3
For legal experts today, this skill is indispensable. Whether preparing for cross-examination or anticipating objections in court, a comprehensive grasp of opposing viewpoints equips attorneys and expert witnesses with the foresight to rebut challenges with precision.
3. Clarity Is Greater Than Complexity
Lincoln’s ability to explain intricate legal matters in simple, digestible language set him apart. He avoided jargon and spoke to jurors like neighbors rather than colleagues. This accessibility wasn’t a simplification of content, but rather a refinement of communication.
In his famed “tail-leg” analogy, he asked, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” When the answer came “five,” Lincoln corrected: “No, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” This humorous logic helped illustrate how labeling does not change reality, an important concept in legal definitions and disputes.4
Today, this principle is crucial for expert witnesses, who must often convey complex scientific or technical findings. A report that no one understands carries little weight. Precision combined with plain language increases comprehension, bolsters trust, and ensures a stronger influence on case outcomes.
4. Let Ethics Be Your Compass
Abraham Lincoln’s legal career was marked not only by his formidable courtroom skills but also by a deep-seated moral compass that guided his professional choices. On one occasion in Springfield, a man asked Lincoln to sue a widow to recover a $600 debt. Lincoln calmly explained that while his client might have a legal claim, the moral right belonged to the widow and her six fatherless children. He refused to take the case, even though he could have won, and offered instead free advice, urging the man to find an honest way to earn the money.5
Judge David Davis and others later observed that Lincoln would “never defend wrong,” even when it meant turning down fees. He believed some things, though legally right, were morally unjustifiable—a stance that reflected his principle of letting justice, not profit, define his work.
He famously wrote, “Resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer.”6
For expert witnesses, this lesson is especially relevant. Taking on a weak or unethical case not only puts credibility at risk but also undermines the legal system. Expert integrity is not just about honesty under oath; it begins with the selection of cases. Upholding standards of objectivity, even under pressure, maintains both personal and institutional integrity.
5. Cross-Examination Requires Composure, Not Combat
According to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in her biography of Lincoln, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln possessed an extraordinary gift of remaining composed in the face of hostility, a trait that increased his credibility.7 Lincoln’s courtroom strategy never hinged on aggression. He preferred to let faulty arguments collapse under the weight of their own contradictions. During cross-examinations, he guided witnesses into revealing inconsistencies through calm and logical questioning.
This approach was evident again in the Armstrong trial, where instead of discrediting the witness through confrontation, Lincoln discredited the testimony through evidence—the moon’s position—without undermining the witness’s dignity.
Modern legal professionals should emulate this restraint. Particularly for expert witnesses, resisting provocations and responding to cross-examination with calm, well-reasoned answers ensures that testimony remains credible and unshaken.
6. Diligence Is the Foundation of Legal Success
One of Lincoln’s most quoted legal dictums is: “The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every calling, is diligence.” Lincoln’s work ethic was tireless. He often read case materials deep into the night and traveled for days to attend court sessions across Illinois. Legal historian Brian Dirck observes that Lincoln’s law office ran on long hours, careful records, and a steady stream of research and writing.8
For expert witnesses, this is perhaps the most transferable of all Lincoln’s habits. Each deposition or courtroom appearance is only as good as the preparation behind it. Thoroughly reviewing documents, anticipating questions, and validating findings all contribute to high-impact testimony.
Meticulous groundwork translates into professional confidence and, more importantly, influence.
7. Humor, Used Wisely, Humanizes the Law
Lincoln often used humor as a deliberate tool to connect with jurors and break the tension. His wit, however, was never caustic. It served to humanize legal proceedings and defuse confrontation.
In one notable case in Woodford County, Abraham Lincoln represented Mrs. Goings, a woman indicted for the murder of her abusive husband, a man known for his violent temper. The circumstances strongly suggested self-defense, and public sentiment largely sided with her. During a court session, when Mrs. Goings was suddenly discovered missing, Lincoln was questioned about her whereabouts. He replied that she had asked him where she could get a drink of water, and he had told her he’d always heard the waters of Tennessee were excellent.9 The implication was clear—she had fled, and Lincoln had subtly aided her escape without explicitly admitting so. Rather than harm his credibility, the quip disarmed the court and won laughter, showcasing how Lincoln’s humor and humility could defuse tension while reinforcing his deep sense of justice.
Today’s legal professionals may find themselves in adversarial settings, but tactful humor, when appropriate, can build rapport with juries and humanize even the most technical testimonies.
8. Maintain Ethical Distance from Difficult Clients
Not every case deserves your time. Lincoln demonstrated that a discerning legal mind should be matched by the ability to walk away when necessary. His unwillingness to support dishonest clients or frivolous claims cost him fees but preserved his reputation.
Law practitioners today face similar pressures. Early-career professionals may feel compelled to accept every engagement. Yet Lincoln’s example shows that discernment builds enduring careers.
Avoiding cases that compromise objectivity or involve questionable tactics ensures long-term credibility with both courts and attorneys.
9. Use Analogies to Clarify, Not Confuse
Lincoln’s analogies were memorable because they clarified, not complicated. Scholar Harold Holzer notes Lincoln’s ability to use humble, down-to-earth metaphors drawn from rural life to explain complex political ideas in ways his audience could easily grasp.
His famous critique of euphemistic language, comparing a “horse chestnut” to a “chestnut horse,” called out those who distorted truth with language. During the first Lincoln–Douglas debate in 1858 (Ottawa, Illinois), Abraham Lincoln aimed at Stephen Douglas’ slippery rhetoric: Douglas was twisting words to support the expansion of slavery. Lincoln famously quipped that Douglas was using language so contorted that one could “prove a horse‑chestnut to be a chestnut horse.”10 In other words, you can label something however you like, but that doesn’t change its nature. The audience’s laughter at this pointed analogy showed how effectively Lincoln exposed the deceptive use of language.
In expert testimony, analogies can powerfully explain technical details. However, they must be grounded in truth and relevance. Misused, they risk misleading juries. Used as Lincoln did, they facilitate understanding.
Legal professionals should practice drawing parallels between technical data and everyday experiences—bridging gaps in comprehension without sacrificing accuracy.
Conclusion
Abraham Lincoln’s legal career remains a goldmine of professional wisdom. His approach, marked by storytelling, integrity, plain language, diligence, and ethical discernment, offers a template for legal professionals across disciplines. Whether preparing testimony, presenting findings, or navigating the moral complexities of modern law, professionals can turn to Lincoln as a standard-bearer for how justice should be practiced.
The courtroom may have evolved with technology and legal complexity, but Lincoln’s principles endure. Among them is his timeless counsel to avoid unnecessary litigation: “Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser—in fees, expenses, and waste of time.”11 His words serve as a powerful reminder that true justice often lies in the wisdom to resolve conflict with fairness and restraint.
All of the views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of The National Law Review.
References
Abraham Lincoln Was a Self-Taught Lawyer—a Really Good One | TIME
Abrams, D. (2018). Lincoln’s Last Trial: The Murder Case That Propelled Him to the Presidency, pp. 201–215.
When I’m getting ready to reason with a… Abraham Lincoln – Forbes Quotes
Tarbell, Ida M. The Life of Abraham Lincoln. New York: McClure, Phillips & Co., 1900.
Burlingame, M. (n.d.). [PDF]. In Abraham Lincoln: A Life, Vol. 1, Chap. 9. Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College.
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. (1953). Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln [Digital collection]. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections.
Goodwin, D. K. (2005). Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Simon & Schuster.
Dirck, B. (2009). Lincoln the Lawyer. University of Illinois Press.
Zall, P. M. (2009). Lincoln laughing: Humor as rhetorical strategy. Illinois History Teacher, 15(2). Northern Illinois University.
Schrag, Z. M. (n.d.). Abraham Lincoln, first debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858 (excerpt). Course materials for History 120, George Mason University.
Lincoln, A. (1953). Fragment: Notes for a law lecture (Vol. 2, pp. 134–135) [Digital edition]. In Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (Sept. 3, 1848–Aug. 21, 1858). Rutgers University Press. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections.
Court of Appeals Decision May Offer Employers Relief for Attorneys’ Fees Under California Labor Code Section 1102.5
California Labor Code section 1102.5 authorizes employees to recover attorneys’ fees if they bring a successful action. However, the employer may preclude an award of attorney’s fees to the employee by establishing the same-decision affirmative defense outlined in Labor Code section 1102.6.
Background on California Labor Code Section 1102.5 Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
On July 8, 2025, California’s Second District Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s decision awarding attorneys’ fees to an employee alleging whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5. The Court of Appeals explained that there is no discretion provided to courts in awarding attorneys’ fees under Labor Code section 1102.5 – meaning, if an employer successfully establishes the same-decision affirmative defense scheme in section 1102.6, the employee has not brought a “successful action” that would warrant an award of attorneys’ fees.
In 2017, Lampkin, a former deputy at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department, filed a single cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 against the county. Lampkin requested monetary damages, but no injunctive or declaratory relief. At trial, the jury found that although Lampkin established that he had engaged in protected activity, the county also met its burden that it would have made the same decision for independent, legitimate reasons. Considering this, the jury did not award Lampkin damages. Lampkin requested the trial court declare him the prevailing party, relying on Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 367, which holds that the same-decision defense does not bar a fee award on claims brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The trial court agreed and allowed Lampkin to file a memorandum of costs and a motion for attorneys’ fees. The trial court then awarded Lampkin costs of $52,043.65 and $400,000 in attorneys’ fees. The county appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and refused to extend the decision in Harris to claims brought forth under Labor Code section 1102.5. The court found that the application of Harris to FEHA claims was distinguishable from the Labor Code for three reasons:
The cases were procedurally different. In Harris, the jury had awarded monetary damages;
The FEHA expressly grants courts discretion to award attorneys’ fees, whereas Labor Code section 1102.5 does not.
The FEHA has broader statutory language than Labor Code section 1102.5. The FEHA only prohibits actions against an employee because of their membership in a protected class, which may be interpreted multiple ways. In contrast, the Labor Code section 1102.6 offers straightforward instructions that once the same-decision defense is met, the case ends. There is no limitation on the extent of or different ways to interpret the same-decision defense.
The Court of Appeals recognized that the Legislature included the same-decision defense in Labor Code section 1102.6 to limit employer liability in cases where a legitimate, independent reason for the adverse action exists. Without this limitation, for example, a plaintiff could potentially prevail on claims where protected disclosure played a minor role in the employer’s decision, exposing employers to liability for decisions influenced by mere passing remarks.
Takeaways for Employers: Attorneys’ Fees and the Same-Decision Defense Under Labor Code 1102.5
Lampkin sets forth a clear distinction between FEHA and Labor Code section 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claims. While this decision may offer employers relief when they successfully prove an affirmative defense, it is arguably limited to situations where relief is obtained. The Lampkin court expressed no opinion as to the outcome where a plaintiff obtained some form of relief, for example injunctive relief.
Structuring Co-Tenancy Clauses: A Collaborative Approach to Risk and Remedy
Why Co-Tenancy Clauses Matter Now More Than Ever
In the ever-morphing world of Retail Leasing, co-tenancy clauses often become the focus of negotiation—and a frequent flashpoint of disputes. Designed to protect tenants from being left vulnerable when shopping centers lose key retailers, these lease provisions can make or break a deal.
What Are Co-Tenancy Clauses, Really?
At its core, a co-tenancy clause is a provision in a retail lease that ties the lease obligations of the tenant—typically rent payments or continued occupancy—to the presence and performance of other tenants in a retail center. If certain conditions aren’t met, tenants may be entitled to pay less rent, shift to an alternative rent structure (i.e., a percentage model), or even walk away from the lease altogether.
The Three “Flavors” of Co-Tenancy
1. Opening Co-Tenancy
This provision states that tenants neither have to open nor pay full rent until a certain number of other tenants (often anchors) have also opened. This is common in developing centers or during major renovations. This provides assurance to the tenants that the shopping center will be sufficiently occupied to ensure foot traffic and potential sales before committing to opening the store.
2. Operating Co-Tenancy
Under this provision, once a tenant is opened and operating, they may be allowed to adjust rent or exit if the center loses key tenants after opening. This is to protect the tenants from operating in centers with insufficient foot traffic, or “ghost centers.”
3. Delivery Co-Tenancy
This type of clause refers to an occupancy condition that must be met before a tenant takes possession of the leased premises. Specifically, tenants want proof that the center will have enough open stores to attract shoppers. Clauses like these are usually contingent on construction timelines or lease signing with other tenants.
Why It Matters More Than Ever
The traditional purpose of co-tenancy was to protect tenants from being stranded in “ghost centers,” after the closing of key anchors. However, the retail landscape of today is far more fluid, and as such, co-tenancy clauses—and the way we structure them—need to evolve. Many legacy anchors are downsizing, being replaced by nontraditional uses, or being redeveloped altogether. Foot traffic these days is also driven by more factors than just square footage.
As this shift continues, it’s no longer enough to simply have a few “big-name” tenants in a lease. Clauses need to define what a “material failure” looks like and ensure that lease remedies reflect an actual disruption in business.
Five Tips for Drafting Stronger Co-Tenancy Clauses
1. Be Precise
It cannot be overstated how essential precision is in drafting these clauses. Avoid ambiguous terms like “comparable tenant mix” or “similar retail profile.” Specify anchor tenants by name, clearly define minimum square footage, include hours of operation requirements, and address what constitutes a “replacement” tenant. Clear and measurable terms make clauses more affordable and less likely to spark disputes.
2. Add Realistic Cure Periods
A well-structured clause should include a cure period—commonly 60 to 180 days—before any remedy is triggered. This gives landlords a window to rectify the issue, re-lease, or adjust before tenants start pulling back.
3. Link Remedies to Sales Impact
Consider requiring proof of declining sales (for example, 20% over 12 months) before tenants can claim rent relief or termination rights, ensuring that remedies are based on real-world effects.
4. Using Tiered Remedies
Instead of jumping straight to immediate or indefinite rent abatement, structure remedies in stages.
First, switch to a percentage rent model
Then, offer a temporary rent reduction
Allow lease termination only after prolonged failure and notice
This approach aligns incentives and gives both parties time to course-correct.
5. Carve Out Exceptions In the Form of Non-Curable Events
Include exceptions for closures due to events outside of the landlord’s control, such as natural disasters, bankruptcy, or redevelopment. Negotiating these issues up front can help avoid disputes down the road.
The Attorney’s Role: Balance, Not Bias
Because attorneys on both sides of the table are tasked simultaneously with protecting a client’s interests and drafting agreements that can stand up to scrutiny and the realities of the market, it’s paramount to approach negotiations with the right mindset: collaboration over confrontation. The goal is not to “win,” but to create a structure that works for both sides over time.
Tough questions need to be asked:
What occupancy levels truly affect business?
Can proof of impact be built in?
Are cure periods realistic?
When both sides work from a place of clarity and intent, deals not only close but also last.
Final Thoughts: Partnership Through Precision
Co-tenancy clauses aren’t just for tenant protection—they’re critical risk-sharing mechanisms that require legal sophistication. With clear terms, fair triggers, and reasonable remedies, attorneys can structure clauses that protect tenants, support landlords, and promote business continuity. It all comes down to precision. The best co-tenancy provisions are not the most aggressive—they are the most clearly defined, reasonably limited, and operationally realistic.
A New Form of Legal Advertising?
Are social media influencers the new path for law firm advertising?
Legal ethics rules once prohibited advertising until those rules were successfully challenged as violating the First Amendment. State bar associations still limit how lawyers can advertise, but plaintiffs’ firms have capitalized on billboards and viral videos (the Law Hawk comes to mind). By contrast, defense firms have shied away from aggressive mass marketing.
This article from The Wall Street Journal discusses how Neon Coat allows businesses—including law firms—to give away free services to influencers in exchange for social media mentions. Will this be the new frontier for legal advertising?
Maybe potential clients won’t be influenced if “hot” TikTok stars promote a lawyer, but I can envision a version that offers similar deals to influential CEOs and businesses. Law firms may want to seek advisory opinions from their state bar associations on how to ensure paid social media mentions stay within ethical guidelines.
How do you build a successful small business? For some, the answer is simple: Get hot people to show up.
www.wsj.com/…
Mastering Deposition Designations in California: Best Practices for Trial Success
Some of the most critical evidence at trial comes in the form of deposition testimony from witnesses who are unable to testify live at trial. Done right, deposition designations can powerfully support your case. Done poorly, they can confuse the jury or worse yet, be excluded. Below are six best practices for California practitioners to ensure your designations are both effective and admissible.
1. It All Starts with a Good Deposition
Laying the groundwork for trial happens long before the jury is sworn in. If a witness lives beyond the court’s subpoena power, their deposition may be the only chance to present their testimony. CCP § 2025.620(c). If you’re taking the deposition, prepare as though you’re conducting a trial examination. A detailed outline and clear objectives will help you elicit testimony that’s both compelling and admissible. If you plan to introduce documents, consider arranging for a document camera or other graphic presentation of the evidence alongside the witness so that you won’t need to later manually show the jury the documents presented to the witness. If it’s a particularly long examination, you should also consider arranging for a second camera on the examiner. While this might be uncomfortable for the examiner, it will be a much less stale presentation to the jury who will grow tired of staring at one person for hours. Conducting a well-executed deposition lays the groundwork for the most effective deposition designations.
If you’re defending the deposition, there are two things to keep in mind.
First, in terms of asserting objections, under California law, any objections to form must be made during the deposition; failing to do so waives them. CCP § 2025.460(b). Though you can later assert evidentiary objections as part of the designations process, you want to be sure to make proper form objections to preserve the record.
Second, because this may be your only chance to frame the witness’s testimony, you should consider conducting a thorough redirect to clarify or rehabilitate your witness. With that in mind, treat every question as if it will be played to a jury—because it might be.
2. Coordinate the Briefing Schedule Early
Deposition designation deadlines can sneak up quickly. Some California jurisdictions have local rules governing the process, but often, there will simply be a deadline by which you must submit designations and counterdesignations to the court. See, e.g., S.F. Superior Local Rule 6.3. In that circumstance, you’ll need to work backward from the court’s deadline, and you do not want to leave this important step for the final days before trial.
Connect with opposing counsel well in advance to agree on a schedule for exchanging designations, objections and counter-designations, and responses to objections (more on that below). The schedule should also include time for formatting designations and objections, printing, and lodging transcripts with the court—this process often takes longer than expected, particularly if the court requires highlighted deposition transcripts or specific objection formatting. Early coordination helps avoid last-minute disputes and ensures both sides have adequate time to prepare.
3. Build in Time for Responses to Objections
Not all objections are straightforward. Sometimes, testimony that appears irrelevant or inadmissible on its face becomes admissible when viewed in context with other evidence. For example, a relevance objection might be overcome by explaining how the testimony ties into a document or witness not yet introduced. Build time into the schedule to craft thoughtful responses that provide this context to the court.
4. Dealing with Over-Designation
In cases with multiple deponents, some attorneys may over-designate testimony. This could be a way for counsel to try to preserve options, but it also could be a tactic to try to bog counsel down with work that distracts from other trial prep. Aside from draining resources, this also reduces the amount of time both responding counsel and the court have to actually analyze the admissibility of each individually designated piece of testimony.
Anticipate this possibility and build in enough time to respond thoroughly. Depending on the volume, the court may be receptive to a priority list—that is, the court reviews the designations in tranches with the most likely to be used going first. Remember, a robust objection process is essential to prevent irrelevant or prejudicial testimony from reaching the jury.
5. Don’t Forget Foundation
The rules of evidence still apply to deposition designations. While it may be tempting to skip over foundation testimony, especially when it involves long pauses while a witness reviews documents, but doing so can backfire and be ripe for an objection on foundation grounds. To prepare for this, either designate the foundation testimony or, better yet, reach an agreement with opposing counsel that foundation was laid for certain areas of testimony. This avoids playing tedious video clips and keeps the jury engaged.
6. Get a Fresh Set of Eyes
Before finalizing designations, consider asking a colleague who hasn’t read the transcript to review the selected excerpts. Ask them to summarize what they learned back to you. You’ll be surprised how often they’ll identify the missing context or confusing gaps. This simple step can dramatically improve the clarity and impact of your designations.
By following these best practices, you’ll be better positioned to present clear, admissible, and persuasive deposition testimony at trial.