Law Office Management – Page 6

Most Law Firms Are Building on Leaky Foundations, and AI Will Expose It

In May, the FBI issued a warning1 about a group that has been targeting law firms across the United States using phishing and social engineering, exploiting the legal industry’s handling of confidential and sensitive data.
While the legal profession is no stranger to cybersecurity risks, this warning comes at a time when the sector is also undergoing a major technological shift. Many law firms are integrating AI into their workflows without fully addressing the structural vulnerabilities in their technology infrastructure. Between the urgency of needing to “keep up” with innovation and the realities of outdated AI systems, law firms are exposed to a level of risk that many aren’t prepared to manage.
Shadow AI, a threat from within
With the rise of AI adoption, cybersecurity threats aren’t exclusively from external actors anymore. One of the most pressing concerns is employees’ often invisible use of unapproved generative AI tools, a phenomenon known as “Shadow AI,” and tools we’re all familiar with, like ChatGPT.
Shadow AI2 refers to AI tools introduced into a workplace without the awareness or approval of IT, legal operations, or firm leadership. These tools are widely available and easy to access, which has led to their rapid adoption across all types of organizations. A recent study found that 99 percent3 of enterprises are exposed to Shadow AI, and fewer than one in seven4 have implemented any AI-specific security or governance controls.
This lack of oversight is particularly dangerous in the legal sector. Often under pressure to meet tight deadlines, legal professionals may use public AI tools to draft emails, conduct research, summarize documents, or brainstorm ideas. If those tools are not governed or secured properly, they can expose sensitive information to environments that are outside of the firm’s control, widening opportunities for unintended disclosure, data leakage, and regulatory risk.
Law firms’ infrastructures are outdated
Many firms continue to rely on a mix of legacy software, public cloud services, and SaaS platforms that were not built with AI integration or legal confidentiality in mind.
While public cloud models offer scalability and ease of use, they often lack the transparency and control that legal organizations need. In many cases, law firms can’t easily determine where their data is stored, how it is processed, or whether it’s being used to train third-party AI models. Even with terms of service and privacy policies in place, the firm’s visibility into the actual movement and handling of data can be limited.
Generative AI tools also become increasingly dependent on firm-specific knowledge and documents as they need access to internal data to provide relevant and reliable outputs. Without a secure environment for these interactions, law firms risk breaching client confidentiality and professional obligations.
Private, isolated AI should be the new standard
Isolated AI environments can address these risks, providing dedicated, private systems designed specifically to support secure and governed AI use within law firms and other professional organizations.
An isolated environment prevents data from being transmitted to or stored on third-party servers outside of the firm’s jurisdiction. This containment is essential for meeting regulatory requirements and fulfilling obligations to clients.
These environments also offer a high degree of customization. AI tools can be trained or fine-tuned using firm-specific documents and knowledge bases without sending that data to external vendors. This results in more accurate and relevant outputs while preserving the integrity and privacy of the firm’s information.
Moving toward isolated environments does not require abandoning cloud computing entirely. Instead, it involves choosing infrastructure models that are purpose-built for security, compliance, and performance within regulated sectors. A properly implemented private cloud, for example, can offer the same flexibility and scalability as public alternatives, while providing the safeguards necessary for legal practice.
AI security is a shared responsibility
To use AI safely and effectively, law firms must also establish clear governance policies that define how these tools are adopted, used, and monitored.
AI governance should address multiple areas:

Tool approval processes that ensure all software is reviewed for compliance, security, and relevance before deployment.
Training programs that help employees understand the risks of using unauthorized AI tools and promote safe alternatives.
Guidelines that define which tasks are appropriate for AI assistance and which require human oversight.
Ongoing audits and evaluations to measure the effectiveness and compliance of AI systems over time.

This governance framework should not be limited to IT departments. It requires collaboration between legal leadership, technology teams, compliance officers, and client-facing staff. AI affects the firm’s risk profile, reputation, and operational integrity, which makes it a shared responsibility across the organization.
More AI use should mean more security
The more law firms rely on AI, the more critical it becomes to ensure that every aspect of its deployment, like where it runs, what data it uses, and who controls it, is aligned with professional obligations and long-term business interests.
The rise of Shadow AI is a warning sign that internal systems and governance models have not kept pace with external innovation.
Law firms need to transition away from general-purpose platforms and toward secure, isolated AI environments that are tailored to the demands of legal practice. This approach supports innovation without compromising the trust that clients place in their legal counsel.
The threats are here, the tools are advancing, and the risks are growing.
What’s needed now is a deliberate shift toward infrastructure and policies that treat AI with the same seriousness as the law itself.
Notes

https://www.ic3.gov/CSA/2025/250523.pdf
https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/shadow-ai
https://142972.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/142972/Files/reports/2025-varonis-state-of-data-security-report.pdf
https://virtualizationreview.com/articles/2025/06/16/ai-booms-but-cloud-security-lags-just-13-use-ai-specific-protections-says-wiz.aspx

Lawyer on the Move: A Checklist for Planning a Lateral Move

In this month’s article, I cover another question that I am often asked regarding the lateral partner process. The question that is always asked is, “Do you have a checklist?” My answer is always the same. “Yes, but it is only a starting point because each situation is different and presents unique issues that must be analyzed separately and apart from the checklist.” Below are some of the most critical considerations and practical steps attorneys should keep in mind when contemplating a lateral move.
Q: I’m a partner and have been contemplating a lateral move to another law firm. What should I be thinking about in terms of planning?
A: Transitioning to a new law firm can be an exciting and life-changing event. But, it requires planning. The process can take anywhere from 3 to 6 months or more depending upon each attorney’s particular situation.

Departing attorneys must balance their fiduciary obligations to their clients along with their fiduciary obligations owed to the law firm and partners. To assist with navigating this important and challenging time, below is a list of considerations that laterals should keep in mind when moving from one firm to another. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather a starting point.

Planning and preparation:

Review the partnership agreement and all related materials
Prepare a list of firms that you may be interested in
Engage a recruiter – For more advice on engaging a recruiter, consult my May 16, 2025 article on “Lawyer on the Move: Using a Legal Recruiter” published in The National Law Review.
Engage ethics counsel familiar with these issues/obligations
Plan and prepare for proper notice to the firm

Responsibilities relating to client matters

Notify clients of departure using best practices set forth in your specific jurisdiction
Determine which matters will be transferred and which matters will be closed
File motions to withdraw/substitute/notice of change of firm name and address, etc.
Work with the firm regarding file transfer letters

Administrative tasks

There are a myriad of administrative tasks that need to be completed during a transition. Moreover, each situation will depend on the specifics of your practice and firm protocol. Oftentimes, a firm will provide the departing attorney with a departure checklist outlining the tasks that must be completed before that individual is released by the firm. These tasks range from completing all your time entries to drafting a transition memorandum, including upcoming deadlines, for each matter that is being restaffed and will remain at the firm after you depart. Specifically, you should:

Familiarize yourself with the firm’s departure checklist, if applicable. If the checklist references other firm policies or documents that are not in your possession, ask for a copy so you fully understand each task before you get started.
Work with the transition partner assigned by the firm to complete each task in a timely manner.
Consult with your counsel to make certain nothing is missed.

Responsibilities of withdrawal

Consider ethical walls or legal holds for matters being transferred
What can and cannot be said to clients regarding your departure, and when can you have these discussions?
What can and cannot be said to your colleagues regarding your departure, and when can you have these discussions? Does it depend on whether the colleague is a partner or an associate at your firm?

The checklist set forth above involves complicated fiduciary and ethical issues that need to be analyzed under the rule(s) of the specific jurisdiction(s) in which you practice and hold your license(s). There can be serious consequences if the rules are not followed. The checklist represents only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the issues that need to be navigated during a lateral move.
There are numerous additional issues that also must be considered throughout the transition process. You would be well advised to hire ethics counsel to advise you on the topics noted above and numerous other related issues such as complying with your fiduciary duties, securing your book of business, and handling the return of your capital account, if applicable. Benefits issues may also arise and must be addressed as you transition from one firm to another.
You are smart to think ahead! Good luck with your potential move, and hopefully, this list will help you to start planning your next steps.

5 Megatrends Shaping the World: How to Stay Ahead of the Curve

Staying the course isn’t always enough – family enterprises must adapt to an ever-changing world to be competitive and ready for the future.
In brief

The willingness to keep up with real-time change is critical. Not doing so can leave family-owned firms lagging in the marketplace.
Megatrends like digital, risk management, regulatory, NextGen and philanthropy are essential and relevant to family firms for potential success.
Embracing risk in lieu of avoiding it will better position family enterprises to head off disruptions and enhance business growth.
Family enterprises, including family offices, blend tradition with innovation. The pandemic was a stark reminder of the speed of change and the fragility of systems that cannot adapt.

The world is not just evolving; it is transforming rapidly and unpredictably. Megatrends such as technological advancements, regulatory shifts, and demographic changes are not isolated forces, but interconnected ones that are shaping our world. To thrive in a globalized economy, family enterprises must adopt a forward-looking, hyper-focused approach to resiliency.
Here are five megatrends that family enterprises need to keep their eye on and plan for:

Digital transformation: Embrace it

Private capital is on the rise, placing family businesses at the forefront of a changing environment. With increasing immigration, rapid technological progress, and a growing reliance on a smaller workforce, the need for adaptability is not just a choice, but a necessity for these enterprises.
To navigate this shift, these businesses need to integrate technology into their core strategies for growth and resilience. This includes implementing robust data management and security to safeguard vital information while allowing necessary access. For family businesses, the digital revolution means more than just adopting new tech — it means a fundamental transformation in operations, engagement, and value delivery. A digital-first mindset, characterized by agility and continuous learning, is essential.
Looking ahead to a future with artificial intelligence, the metaverse, and Web 3.0, family enterprises must explore the limits of what’s possible and prepare for a blended digital-physical reality with new avenues for innovation and connectivity. Adapting is not just about surviving; it’s about thriving in a digital-centric world where adaptability equals success.

Enterprise risk management: building resilience

A robust enterprise risk management (ERM) system is crucial in today’s unpredictable landscape. Simply identifying risks is inadequate; businesses need to be adept at early detection, response, and recovery from unexpected incidents to maintain resilience amid volatility.
Traditional risk management methods fall short. Even large global corporations struggle to create sustainable risk strategies, highlighting the necessity for a more dynamic approach. ERM must be woven into a company’s fabric, with a focus on comprehensive risk handling.
Companies should appoint a risk steward responsible for overseeing risk management across the organization and fostering a unified, proactive approach. This individual should have a clear grasp of the company’s primary risks and the following attributes:

The skill to dismantle organizational barriers and collaborate across various operational levels
An understanding of the organization’s risk tolerance and how to incentivize leaders to agree on a standard risk definition
The ability to align risk priorities with overall business performance

Whether enhancing current systems or introducing new ones, adequate data and technology infrastructure should:

Establish a shared risk ecosystem with a unified taxonomy and data model
Streamline and automate risk management tasks, reducing effort and training requirements
Eliminate redundancies, phase out outdated systems, and leverage optimized technologies like cloud services and advanced analytics
Ensure systems are robust enough to endure disruptions and recover quickly – resilience is the future of risk management.

Regulatory environment: anticipating change

A global perspective is crucial when considering megatrends. With regulatory environments in flux, international organizations that are informed on the latest global developments, like the World Economic Forum, can provide crucial guidance for family enterprises seeking to identify and get ahead of the next megatrends.
By following their lead, family enterprises will be better equipped to anticipate and plan strategically for these changes. Additionally, proactive family enterprises are at the forefront of initiatives such as public-private partnerships as a means to address societal issues.

Rising generations: the future of leadership

As Gen Z enters the workforce and ascends into leadership roles, new viewpoints and priorities emerge found in EY data from the 2024 Live Work Play Study. Their inherent digital fluency, practical mindset, and drive for meaningful change are poised to influence the direction of family businesses. Understanding the unique motivations and behaviors of each generation is crucial for cultivating a workplace culture that capitalizes on the diverse strengths of each generation.

Philanthropy: a new approach to giving

The approach to philanthropy is evolving, with an increasing focus on strategic giving and measurable impact. Family enterprises have the opportunity to leverage their wealth for social good, which requires careful consideration of how funds are allocated.
The rise of social welfare organizations, such as 501(c) (4)s, offers a new avenue for advocacy and partnership, allowing enterprises to contribute to societal change more directly and meaningfully.
Moving into the future
Family enterprises and offices must evolve from a risk avoidance mindset to risk resilience. By understanding and preparing for megatrends, family enterprises can turn potential disruptions into opportunities for growth.
Family enterprises should incorporate the following action steps into their strategic planning:

Develop a proper risk management framework: Establish a comprehensive risk management framework that goes beyond simply identifying risks and includes strategies for managing and mitigating those risks effectively.
Get smarter about generations and human behavior: Enhance your understanding of different generations within the family enterprise and their behaviors. This knowledge can help you tailor approaches that resonate with each generation and manage family dynamics.
Think globally: Avoid being insular and recognize the importance of thinking as a global citizen. Even if the enterprise or office does not operate internationally, global events and trends can have local impacts, and it’s crucial to be aware of and plan for these.
Anticipate regulatory changes: Stay informed about potential regulatory changes and understand how they may affect the enterprise. Large organizations often struggle to keep up with regulatory changes, so thinking ahead and preparing for these shifts is essential.
Support better regulation through public-private partnerships: Engage in public-private partnerships to address issues collaboratively rather than relying solely on regulation. Both sectors will develop more effective and targeted solutions than regulations that may not fully address the underlying concerns.

Let us embrace these trends not as threats but as the path forward to a more robust and dynamic future.
Summary
Traits like resiliency, agility and proactivity are paramount in navigating the speed at which the world moves in terms of technology, regulations and demographics. Family-owned firms should strive to be forward-thinking and focused on harnessing the opportunities for success that come through megatrends.

Copyright at a Crossroads: How Generative AI Challenges Traditional Doctrine

Abstract
As courts grapple with whether training AI on copyrighted material constitutes fair use, companies have adopted divergent compliance strategies. This piece analyzes recent litigation, industry practices, and legislative proposals aimed at balancing innovation with creator rights.
Background
The development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems requires access to large-scale datasets critical for enhancing model performance and mitigating algorithmic biases. Yet, the reliance on data has brought AI development into direct tension with copyright law, as many models are trained on copyrighted content without obtaining authorization from rights holders. In the absence of judicial clarity, companies have adopted divergent approaches to navigating this tension—ranging from rights-cleared datasets to permissive scraping practices—each with different implications for compliance, innovation, and liability.
This article explores the current legal uncertainties surrounding generative AI and copyright law, analyzes how companies are interpreting fair use at both the training and output stages, and surveys emerging policy responses aimed at closing the gap between technological capability and legal doctrine.
Output-Phase vs. Training-Phase Fair Use
Once a model produces a result, that output is typically assessed under traditional copyright principles. If a generated work is “substantially similar” to a protected original, the four-factor fair use test applies: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the market. For instance, in The New York Times Co. v. OpenAI, the plaintiffs allege that ChatGPT occasionally reproduces Times content verbatim—raising the question: when does an AI-generated output cross the line into infringement? Courts may turn to precedents like Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., where the Second Circuit held that digitizing and indexing books for search was transformative. But whether a generative model’s output—particularly when mimicking style or structure— meets the same standard remains an open question. More novel is the issue of whether using copyrighted works for training itself constitutes fair use. In its May 2024 report, the U.S. Copyright Office suggested that converting expressive works into nonhuman-readable data (such as statistical weights) may qualify as “transformative,” particularly in research contexts. The Office analogized model training to the Google Books decision, which permitted large-scale digitization for non-expressive, analytic uses. However, this position is contested. Critics argue that training models on copyrighted material at scale—even if transformed—may exceed fair use when outputs echo identifiable elements of original works. In Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., the court declined to treat a language model as a derivative work in the absence of specific outputs mirroring the plaintiffs’ books. Notably, the case remains at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and future rulings may further clarify these boundaries.
Divergent Industry Practices and Policy Proposals
Industry responses to legal uncertainty vary widely. One prominent image-generation platform places infringement liability on users via disclaimers in its terms of service and employs watermarking to support attribution. Other models are trained on the LAION dataset, a web-scraped repository filtered by open license tags, but face criticism over provenance inaccuracies and limited enforceability of opt-outs. These divergent practices highlight a broader legal concern: that AI systems may replicate a creator’s distinctive style without consent or compensation. In response, some stakeholders have supported legislation such as the Preventing Abuse of Digital Replicas Act (PADRA), which would grant artists a private right of action when AI is used to imitate their unique style for commercial gain. PADRA is narrowly tailored, requiring 2 both “demonstrable intent” and a “commercial purpose”. The proposed legislation is designed to close the legal gap left by traditional copyright law in addressing stylistic appropriation. Outside of PADRA, other proposed solutions with broad support include text-and-data mining exemptions for research, opt-out registries for creators, and collective licensing regimes modeled on those used in the music industry.
Conclusion
The intersection of generative AI and copyright law remains unsettled and rapidly evolving. Rights-cleared development models—featuring licensed datasets, proactive moderation, and provenance tools—offer one compliance-conscious approach, but they are not a cure-all. Courts will need to define how the fair use doctrine applies to both training and output, while legislators continue to explore targeted reforms like PADRA. Ultimately, the legal framework for generative AI is unlikely to emerge from a single ruling or statute. Instead, it will be shaped by a mosaic of court decisions, negotiated licensing regimes, industry norms, and legislative innovation. The challenge ahead is not just to balance innovation and rights—but to build a system that does so predictably, fairly, and at scale.

Mastering the Art of the Follow-Up: How to Turn Events into Real Business Development Opportunities

You spent weeks or months planning the event. You invited the right people, chose a strong format and created the kind of setting where real conversations could happen. Maybe it was a cocktail reception. A panel. A small dinner. What matters is that you brought people together with intention.
But too many companies (and people) stop there. They let the energy die down. They wait too long to follow up or send the same message to everyone. That’s where the opportunity slips.
The follow-up is where the impact really happens. It’s how you turn a moment of connection into something more. A next step. A new matter. A stronger relationship.
This article walks through how to follow up the right way to build relationships, visibility and business. It covers what companies should do, what individuals should do, how to handle no-shows and how to use LinkedIn to keep things going. It also includes how to become a connector for others and why that’s one of the most effective ways to add value to your network.
What Your Company Should Do After the Event
Companies often spend most of their energy on planning. But if you don’t build a plan for what happens after, you’re leaving so much value on the table. The follow-up is how you extend the life of the event, bring people closer to your brand and give your team tools to move relationships forward. Here’s how to make sure your firm (and you) get the most out of the experience.

Send a thank-you message that adds something: A generic note won’t make an impression. Recap the purpose of the event and highlight a few moments that stood out. If there was a strong quote or a key takeaway, include it. Add a photo if it feels appropriate. Segment your outreach. Senior contacts should get a different message than junior professionals or peers. One size never fits all.
Post about the event on LinkedIn with intention: Skip the photo dump and vague caption. Share a real insight from the event, something that sparked conversation or prompted a new question. Keep it useful and brief. Tag people only when it makes sense. Make it about the substance, not the optics.
Turn the event into content worth reading: If the event focused on a timely issue or trend, create a short article or blog post based on what was discussed. Include your firm’s perspective. Focus on what clients need to know, not a recap. This content should reinforce your value and expertise, not repeat the agenda.
Equip your people to follow up quickly and well: Don’t assume everyone will know what to do next. Share the attendee list, notes from key conversations and follow-up templates. Identify high-priority contacts and offer talking points or next steps. Make it easy to take action. Most people won’t unless you give them the tools.
Update your tracking systems immediately: Add every attendee to your CRM or tracker. Note who they spoke with, what was discussed and what needs to happen next. Flag high-value targets for additional follow-up. If you don’t track this, it gets lost. Follow-up doesn’t work if it’s based on memory.

What Individuals Should Do After the Event
If you spent time talking to people at the event, the next step is on you. This is where most people hesitate. They tell themselves they’ll get to it later and then never do. I’ve seen it happen too many times and I’ve been guilty of it myself. Years ago I went to a packed industry dinner where I met someone who could have opened doors for a big opportunity. We had a great conversation, exchanged cards and promised to stay in touch. But I didn’t follow up until three weeks later and by then the moment had passed. I wasn’t top of mind anymore. That experience stuck with me.
The truth is, it doesn’t need to be perfect or overly polished. It just needs to be done. If you wait too long you risk losing the momentum. If you overthink it you’ll talk yourself out of reaching out. You’ve already made the connection. Now build on it while it’s still fresh. Send the note. Make the call. Keep the door open. It’s that simple.

Send a personal message within a day or two: Mention something you talked about. Keep it short and friendly. You’re just picking up where you left off.
Connect on LinkedIn: Consider including a personal note. Remind them where you met and thank them for the conversation. If you had a real exchange, this will feel natural.
Keep the relationship warm: Send a useful article, a relevant invite or just check in. Do it in a way that fits your relationship. The goal isn’t to pitch. It’s to stay in touch.
Track your outreach: Make a quick note to remind yourself when and how you connected. Set a calendar reminder to follow up again in a few weeks or months.
Be a super connector: Look for ways to bring people together. If someone you met at the event would benefit from knowing someone else in your network, make the introduction. It doesn’t have to be a big production. A quick email or message is often all it takes. When you make thoughtful connections, it shows you’re paying attention and thinking beyond your own relationships. It also signals that you’re someone people can trust to make smart, relevant introductions.

Speaking of Super Connectors…
One of the most valuable things you can do after an event isn’t about your own follow-up. It’s about helping other people. Introducing two smart contacts to each other can be more impactful than anything you say about yourself. And it leaves an impression that lasts.
You don’t have to be the most senior person in the room or have the biggest network. You just need to be thoughtful. When you connect people in ways that feel personal and intentional, you become someone others want to stay close to.
Here’s how to do it well:

Look for unmet needs: Pay attention to what people are working on. Is someone hiring? Are they trying to grow their presence in a certain market? Are they struggling with visibility or new business? Think about who you know who could help with that.
Make your introductions clear and specific: Don’t just say, “You two should know each other.” Explain why. Share a sentence or two about each person and what they’re focused on. Set the context. Make it easy for them to see the value in connecting.
Cross networks and roles: Great connections often happen outside the usual circles. Introduce people across industries, seniority levels or backgrounds. A founder might need a lawyer. A private equity partner might need a branding expert. Think big.
Stay organized: Keep track of who you’ve introduced and when. Follow up with each person later to see if the conversation happened. It shows you care and that you’re not just making connections to check a box.
Don’t overdo it: Every introduction should feel intentional. Quality matters more than quantity. You want to be known for sending the right names at the right time, not for flooding inboxes with random connections.

Being a connector shows people you’re paying attention. It also proves you’re not only thinking about yourself. That’s rare. And that’s the kind of person people want in their corner.
How to Handle No-Shows
An RSVP means something. Even if someone didn’t attend, they were interested. Maybe the topic spoke to them, or they knew someone hosting. They took the time to register, and that gives you a reason to follow up.
But what happens too often? Nothing. They get overlooked. They don’t hear from anyone. That’s a mistake. These are people who already signaled some level of connection. Now it’s your job to pick it back up and find a way to bring them back in. With the right outreach, you can restart the conversation and turn a missed event into a new opportunity.

Start with a prioritized list: Pull a list of no-shows and focus on the contacts who align with your goals. That might include clients, prospects, alumni or industry relationships. Don’t treat this as a mass outreach project. Be selective and strategic.
Make the outreach matter: A generic recap won’t do much. Think about what would be useful to them based on their role or industry. If a specific topic came up that’s tied to their business, start there. You don’t need to mention that they missed the event. Focus on what they would find helpful now.
Tie the follow-up to a next step: Share a relevant article or client alert. Invite them to a future event. Suggest a time to connect one-on-one. The goal isn’t to rehash what already happened. It’s to move the relationship forward from where it is now.
Assign outreach to the right people: If there’s an existing relationship, the message should come from that person. If not, choose someone who can speak with authority about the topic or the space the contact works in. The outreach should feel intentional, not random.
Track and follow through: Add these contacts to your internal tracking. Note what was sent and when. Identify who responded and what the next action should be. This isn’t just post-event housekeeping. It’s an extension of your business development strategy.
Connect with them on LinkedIn: If you’re not already connected, send a short note with your request. Mention the event briefly and let them know you’d like to stay in touch. This gives them an easy way to learn more about you and makes future outreach feel more natural.
Stay visible over time: If they’re not already in your LinkedIn network, send a connection request with a short, professional note. Continue to post and engage on topics that reinforce your expertise. Make sure your activity supports the outreach that’s already happened.
Think long term: Just because someone didn’t attend this time doesn’t mean they won’t engage next time. Keep the line open. Pay attention to what matters to them. Invite them to something more targeted. Stay consistent.

When it comes to this audience, also consider:

Debrief with your internal team: Identify which no-shows are worth a second look. Share relevant context and make sure there’s a clear owner and plan for each contact.
Loop in colleagues where it makes sense: If a no-show would be better served by another lawyer or team, pass the contact along thoughtfully. Make sure there’s follow-through.
Turn it into a check-in opportunity: If the contact is a current or former client, use the moment to reach out and ask what they’re seeing in the market or what’s on their radar.
Use no-show patterns to improve your invites: If the same people always RSVP and cancel, reconsider the format or content. They may be better served by a different kind of outreach.

The missed event doesn’t matter as much as what you do next. A thoughtful follow-up is often where the real relationship starts.
Using LinkedIn to Keep the Conversation Going
LinkedIn is one of the most effective ways to continue building relationships after an event. It helps people understand what you care about, how you think and where you show up. It also keeps you visible to the people you met without being intrusive. That visibility matters. When someone is deciding who to refer or hire, they often check LinkedIn first. What you do there reinforces everything you said in person.
Here’s how to use LinkedIn to build lasting connections after the event:

Connect with the people you met: Send a connection request within a few days while the conversation is still fresh. Always include a short note that reminds them where you met and what you discussed. A personal message makes the interaction feel intentional and thoughtful. Avoid sending a blank request or something overly generic. That small extra effort builds trust.
Post something thoughtful about the event: Choose one takeaway that stood out. This could be a quote, a topic that sparked strong reactions or a trend that came up in multiple conversations. Keep the post short and focused. Share your perspective. If you tag others, make sure there is a clear reason to do it. A good post extends the life of the event and gives your network something useful to think about.
Comment on posts from other attendees: When others post about the event, don’t ignore it. Add a meaningful comment or share it with your own thoughts. This helps you stay visible without writing something from scratch. More importantly, it shows you are engaged and paying attention. It’s also a good way to support your contacts and stay on their radar.
Share something relevant to the conversations you had: If your firm has a client alert, article or podcast episode that relates to something discussed at the event, share it privately or as a post. Explain why it’s helpful. This makes you a resource rather than someone trying to sell. Even if the person doesn’t respond, you’ve shown you listened and followed through.
Stay active in the days and weeks that follow: Many people will visit your profile after connecting with you. If you are posting and engaging with others, it gives them a better sense of who you are and how you think. You don’t need to post every day. A few consistent actions help build familiarity and make it easier for people to remember your strengths when opportunities come up.
Use your activity to reinforce your credibility: Your posts, comments and shares should align with the kind of work you want to be known for. If you’re in private equity, talk about trends you’re seeing. If you work with founder-led businesses, comment on news about those companies. The more your activity reflects your focus, the more likely it is that your connections will think of you when something relevant comes their way.
Follow up privately with content or a next step: LinkedIn doesn’t always need to be public. If you had a strong conversation with someone at the event, follow up with a short message that includes something of value. That could be a relevant article, an introduction or a quick note suggesting a future conversation. This helps you move from online visibility to actual relationship-building.
Watch for their updates and engage consistently: Staying in touch doesn’t require a big move. Watch for their updates, promotions, job changes or published content. Comment when it makes sense. A short, relevant response to one of their posts can be just as powerful as a full outreach email. It reminds them of who you are and keeps the connection alive.

LinkedIn works best when it’s used consistently and with intention. It shouldn’t replace your direct follow-up, but it plays a major role in keeping you visible, credible and connected. When done well, it turns a quick exchange at an event into a long-term relationship.
Make Follow-Up Part of the Plan
You can’t rely on good intentions to make follow-up happen. It needs to be built into the planning process from the start. Otherwise it gets delayed, rushed or forgotten.

Start by working follow-up into your event timeline. Think through what will happen after, who’s responsible and what tools they’ll need. Create a shared document that includes the full attendee list, who invited whom, who they spoke with and what kind of follow-up makes sense. Assign owners for key contacts. Don’t leave it vague.
Draft the follow-up materials in advance. That means thank-you emails, social media copy, LinkedIn templates and talking points. Also decide what content to share, whether it’s a blog post, a relevant client alert or an invitation to a future event. Having those pieces ready will make it easier for people to take action in a timely way.
It’s all about the follow up. Your follow-up doesn’t need to happen immediately, but it should happen within a few days while the event is still fresh. Block time on calendars if needed. Set internal reminders. Give your team what they need to reach out without having to start from scratch.

A few days later, check in. Who followed up. Who got a response. Who might need a second touchpoint. This is where marketing and BD can step in again to help think through what’s next.
Also pay attention to the people who RSVP’d but didn’t attend. Reach out to them. Send a quick note, a summary of what they missed or a link to a relevant resource. The interest was there. Don’t waste it.

If you want your events to lead to something more, you have to treat follow-up as part of the strategy. Not an extra task. Not something you’ll get around to when you have time. The real value of the event is built after it ends. That’s the part too many people skip.
Don’t Let the Event Be the End
Getting the right people in the room is only the beginning. What you do next is what matters.
The real value of an event is in what happens afterward. The conversations you continue. The relationships you deepen. The opportunities you create by staying visible and following through.
Make sure your colleagues know who they met and what steps to take next. Reach out while the connection is still fresh. Personalize every interaction. And don’t wait for someone else to do it.
This is where business gets done. Quietly. Thoughtfully. Intentionally.
Because the event might be over, but the window to make something real from it is just opening.

Speculation of Harm Isn’t Standing: Not Every Adverse Board Decision Is Ticket to Appeal

After assessing whether a patent owner had standing to appeal the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final written decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found no injury in fact to support Article III jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Dolby Labs. Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, Case No. 23-2110 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2025) (Moore, Clevenger, Chen, JJ.)
Dolby owns a patent covering a prediction method involving an in-loop filter. Unified Patents, claiming to be the sole real party in interest (RPI), filed an inter partes review (IPR) challenging several patent claims as anticipated and obvious. Dolby contested the challenge, identifying nine additional entities it argued should have been named as RPIs (alleged RPIs). The Board declined to rule on Dolby’s inclusion, however, and proceeded with Unified as the sole RPI.
In its final written decision, the Board found that Unified failed to establish the unpatentability of any challenged claims. Consistent with the US Patent & Trademark Office’s practice, it also declined to address the RPI dispute, finding it immaterial – there was no evidence the alleged RPIs were estopped from filing their own IPRs later or that Unified had advantageously or strategically omitted them. Dolby appealed.
The Federal Circuit explained that when it reviews final Board decisions, its jurisdiction is constrained by Article III’s “Cases” and “Controversies” requirement. To establish standing, an appellant must demonstrate:

A concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent, not speculative.
A causal link between the injury and the appellee’s challenged conduct.
A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable ruling.

Dolby asserted standing to appeal the Board’s refusal to address the RPI dispute based on three grounds:
Its statutory right to appeal as a “dissatisfied” party under 35 U.S.C. § 319.

The denial of its right to information under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
An injury in fact arising from potential breaches of license agreements by the alleged RPIs and possible conflicts of interest involving the Board’s administrative patent judges.

The Federal Circuit rejected Dolby’s argument that it had a right to appeal based solely on dissatisfaction with the Board’s decision. The Court explained that the right to appeal a Board decision under the America Invents Act (AIA) requires Article III standing. The Court also dismissed Dolby’s argument for a statutory right to RPI information, finding that the AIA does not create an informational right. The Court explained that unlike statutes such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Federal Election Campaign Act, which expressly grant public access to information, the AIA lacks a public access provision and explicitly limits judicial review of IPR-related determinations, including RPI disclosures.
As to Dolby’s right to appeal the Board decision, the Federal Circuit found Dolby’s argument too speculative to establish standing, citing four key deficiencies:
Dolby failed to assert that any alleged RPIs were party to license agreements, undermining its claim of potential breach.

Dolby provided no evidence of conflicts of interest between the Board’s administrative patent judges and the alleged RPIs, nor any resulting harm.
Dolby could not demonstrate concrete harm from the Board’s refusal to adjudicate the RPI issue, as no litigation or estoppel-triggering event was pending.
Dolby’s claim that Unified might alter its litigation strategy if required to disclose its members was deemed speculative and insufficient to establish injury in fact.

Practice Note: Article III standing is a strict gatekeeper in appeals from the Board, notwithstanding the right of appeal granted by the AIA. Dissatisfaction with a Board decision or speculation regarding potential harm as a sequelae from the decision is insufficient to establish actual injury in fact.

June 2025 Legal News: Law Firm News, Industry Awards and Recognition and Women in Law

Anthony Amert (Rising Star)
Kean DeCarlo (Patent Star 2025)
Preston Heard (Patent Star 2025)
Barry Herman (Patent Star 2025)
Chris Humphrey (Patent Star 2025)
Laura Kees (Trademark Star 2025)
Steve Levitan (Patent Star 2025, Trademark Star 2025)
Michael McCue (Trademark Star 2025)
Fabio Marino (Patent Star 2025)
Lisa Moyles (Notable Practitioner)
Michael Tobin (Patent Star 2025, Trademark Star 2025)
Jennifer Van Kirk (Trademark Star 2025)
Lester Vincent (Patent Star 2025)
Jeff Whittle (Patent Star 2025)

Greenberg Traurig, LLP announced that the firm’s Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice has been ranked in the 2025 edition of the Chambers USA Guide: Nationwide Privacy & Data Security: The Elite and Nationwide Privacy & Data Security: Litigation.
In addition, three attorneys from the practice group were individually ranked in the guide for their dedication and experience in helping clients navigate complex cybersecurity and privacy matters:

Liz Harding, Nationwide Privacy & Data Security: Privacy
Jena M. Valdetero, Nationwide Privacy & Data Security: Cybersecurity
David A. Zetoony, Nationwide Privacy & Data Security: Privacy

Another law firm that was ranked in the Chambers USA Guide is Moore & Van Allen PLLC, with 12 practices and 39 attorneys being named. The firm was ranked as a top firm in the following practice areas:

Banking & Finance
Banking & Finance: Mainly Regulatory
Bankruptcy/Restructuring
Environment
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Litigation: General Commercial
Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations
Real Estate
Real Estate: Finance
Corporate/M&A
Health Care

Firm attorneys that were named in the guide include:

Neil T. Bloomfield (Banking & Finance: Mainly Regulatory)
John A. Fagg, Jr. (Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations)
Joseph “Joe” A. Fernandez (Energy & Natural Resources)
Stephen E. Gruendel (Bankruptcy/Restructuring)
Arlene D. Hanks (Intellectual Property)
Daniel “Danny” L. Johnson, Jr. (Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation)
James “Jim” R. Langdon (Bankruptcy/Restructuring)
Wood W. Lay (Labor & Employment)
Luis M. Lluberas (Bankruptcy/Restructuring)
Katie A. McConnell (Banking & Finance)
Valecia M. McDowell (Litigation: General Commercial; Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations)
Karin M. McGinnis (Labor & Employment)
Peter J. McGrath, Jr. (Environment)
C. Wayne McKinzie (Banking & Finance)
James “Jim” P. McLoughlin, Jr. (Litigation: General Commercial; Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations)
Thomas L. Mitchell (Banking & Finance, Eminent Practitioner)
Daniel “Tripp” H. Monroe, III (Banking & Finance)
Mark A. Nebrig (Litigation: General Commercial)
J. Christopher “Chris” Oates (Real Estate)
Edward P. O’Keefe (Banking & Finance: Mainly Regulatory)
Tanisha Palvia (Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations)
William “Tom” Thomas Parrott, IV (Banking & Finance)
Alan W. Pope (Bankruptcy/Restructuring)
W. Kevin Ransom (Intellectual Property)
Frank E. Schall (Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations)
Ryan M. Smith (Banking & Finance)
Zachary H. Smith (Bankruptcy/Restructuring)
John A. Stoker (Banking & Finance: Mainly Regulatory)
Mary Katherine H. Stukes (Environment)
Christopher D. Thompson (Real Estate: Finance)
Kathryn G. Wellman (Banking & Finance: Mainly Regulatory)
Jeremy H. Godwin (Corporate/M&A)
William “Bill” H. Zimmern (Corporate/M&A)
Charles M. Jordan, Jr. (Health Care)
Trudy H. Robertson (Health Care)
David L. Eades (Bankruptcy/Restructuring)
Jeffrey “Jeff” W. Glenney (Real Estate)
J. Richard Hazlett (Banking & Finance)
James “Jim” W. Hovis (Banking & Finance)

Women in Law
Shannon S. Broome, a partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s San Francisco office, was named among the 2025 Top Women Lawyers in California by the Daily Journal. This marks her seventh time receiving the honor, which highlights female lawyers in California who have made a difference to their firms, clients and profession.
Serving as the managing partner of the office, leader of the California environmental practice and co-leader of the firm’s Environmental, Social and Governance practice, Ms. Broome is frequently sought for her over 30 years of litigation and negotiation experience.
Natalie Alameddine, Linda Kornfeld and Stacy D. Phillips from Blank Rome LLP were also named 2025 Top Female Lawyers by the Daily Journal. Like Ms. Broome, Ms. Kornfeld and Ms. Phillips have both previously been recognized on the list.
Ms. Alameddine focuses her labor and employment practice on defending employers in class action and single-plaintiff matters. She represent clients in a wide range of areas, from wage and hour issues to discrimination and harassment.
Ms. Kornfeld is a prominent insurance recover attorney who has over 25 years of experience in representing corporate policyholders. She assists clients in the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance assets.
Ms. Phillips, one of the country’s most well known family law practitioners, specializes in high-profile and high-net-worth custody and divorce cases. She is well regarded for her compassion in representing clients, as well as her adept negotiation and skilled persuasion.
Buchalter announced that shareholder Amanda Hyland was recognized a 2025 IP Star by Managing IP.
The publication “provides independent and impartial accreditation across 151 jurisdictions, covering 1,880 firms and 7,100 practitioners.”

Family Office Governance in 2025: Structuring Ownership and Management for Legal Resilience

As family offices continue to grow in complexity, size, and cross-border exposure, the need for clear separation between ownership and management has become critical. In 2025, legal resilience in the face of intergenerational transitions, regulatory scrutiny, and multi-jurisdictional holdings is no longer optional. This article outlines key structures and legal considerations that family offices should adopt to mitigate risk, improve decision-making, and ensure long-term sustainability.
Why Separate Ownership and Management?
Family offices frequently blur the lines between ownership and operational control, leading to governance bottlenecks and legal vulnerabilities. Without clear boundaries, decision-making may become opaque, fiduciary duties may be compromised, and succession plans may be challenged. The consequences of such ambiguity can include intra-family disputes, loss of tax advantages, and weakened asset protection structures.
Legal advisors play a critical role in helping families formalize these boundaries. This includes drafting governance documents, structuring ownership through holding companies or family trusts, and defining the operational remit of executives.
Three Pillars of Governance Separation

Family Charter with Legal BackingA family charter is often the foundational document articulating shared values, vision, and decision-making protocols. While not always legally binding, a well-drafted charter can be referenced in shareholder agreements or trust deeds to add enforceability. Legal counsel should ensure alignment with any formal operating agreements.
Formal Family CouncilA family council provides a structured forum for owner engagement, especially across generations. Legal practitioners can assist in drafting bylaws governing membership, voting rights, and roles. This helps to prevent overreach by operational executives and ensures accountability.
Ownership vs. Management EntitiesSeparating equity-holding entities (e.g., trusts, foundations, HoldCos) from operational structures (e.g., ManagementCos or SFO/MFO platforms) enhances legal clarity. It also helps shield family wealth from commercial liability. Attorneys should advise on jurisdictional implications, particularly in relation to tax and regulatory compliance.

Cross-Border Complexity and Jurisdictional Nuance
In 2025, many family offices operate across the U.S., EU, Middle East, and Asia. Legal frameworks such as Delaware trust law, Singapore’s VCC regime, and DIFC’s Foundations Law introduce varying approaches to control, liability, and privacy. Tailoring governance structures to local law is essential. There is no one-size-fits-all.
For example, UAE-based families may leverage DIFC foundations for ring-fencing ownership, while U.S.-based families might prioritise LLCs with layered voting structures. Legal counsel must guide entity selection, jurisdiction shopping, and cross-border enforceability.
The Evolving Role of Legal Advisors
Lawyers advising family offices are no longer just estate planners. They are architects of multi-generational governance. This includes:

Drafting shareholder or partnership agreements that reflect family charters
Designing succession frameworks with staggered transitions of control
Mitigating risks through formalised fiduciary roles and liability protections

Legal advisors must also stay attuned to ESG governance demands, regulatory updates (e.g., beneficial ownership registries), and rising next-gen expectations for transparency.
Conclusion: Governance as Legal Infrastructure
Family office governance is no longer about preserving tradition. It is about future-proofing a legal structure to handle complexity, mitigate risk, and empower responsible leadership. Separating ownership from management is a cornerstone of legal resilience, and in 2025, the families who invest in robust legal frameworks will be the ones best positioned for longevity.
Legal counsel remains indispensable in crafting governance systems that not only reflect a family’s values, but can withstand the scrutiny of time, markets, and multigenerational change.

Imagining Lawyer Malpractice in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

My dear Miss Glory, the Robots are not people. Mechanically they are more perfect than we are; they have an enormously developed intelligence, but they have no soul. 1
This was a quote at the outset of Bunce v. Visual Tech. Innovations, Inc.2 – a recent case involving a lawyer who used ChatGPT to write a legal brief containing hallucinated or fake legal cases to support the legal argument presented to the court. As the court noted, while sanctioning the offending lawyer who presented the false cases to the court, “[t]o be a lawyer is to be human, a tacit prerequisite to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11(b)(2).”3
The future is here. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) is fully capable of generating legal briefs, pleadings, demand letters, and other legal correspondence.4 Just open ChatGPT and prompt it to write a demand letter involving some set of facts involving a casualty and ask it to make a demand for one million dollars. Open AI models like ChatGPT can write legal briefs, demand letters, and other legal correspondence, and legally trained GAI models can indeed write strong legal correspondence and legal briefs.
What is a legally trained GAI model and how does it work?
GAI works by using neural networks to learn patterns and structures within existing data. This allows GAI to generate new and original content based on the prompts or inputs it receives from users. In doing so, GAI effectively mimics the process of human creativity by creating something entirely new from learned information.
GAI models are trained on large sets of data using existing content. This helps the model understand patterns and relationships within that data. This training data typically covers a wide range of variations and examples within a specific domain. And so, for text data, like a legal brief, the model needs a lot of examples of legal briefs, and perhaps pleadings and legal correspondence, too.
Once a model is trained, it can generate new content by sampling from the learned patterns and creating outputs that are similar to the data used in its training but with variations. The model is then “fine-tuned” by being given “feedback” on the outputs it presents in response to the inputs it receives. It then uses this “feedback” to improve its performance by providing more accurate and relevant outputs in the future. In other words, the more training data and feedback the model receives, the better the outputs.
A legally trained model that has been trained on large data sets involving the law, such as legal briefs and legal correspondence, can generate accurate and relevant briefs and letters based on the prompts it receives. Thus, a legally trained GAI model can do things like:

Summarize complex legal cases.
Analyze contracts.
Identify key legal arguments.
Predict outcomes based on similar cases.
Generate efficient first drafts of legal documents.

In a world where lawyers are overworked and have too much going on in their professional lives, legally trained GAI models can make lawyers more efficient by creating first drafts of letters and briefs.
The limitations of using GAI models
It is important to understand that a GAI model is only as good as the training data and feedback it receives. If the training data contains errors, the model is effectively trained to recreate those errors when generating new content. Similarly, if the training data has biases, the outputs of the GAI model are likely to mimic those biases. If biases and errors are not weeded out through the feedback process, they can seriously compromise the outputs generated by the model. Similarly, if the user prompts are not precisely written and/or if the user is not well-trained on how to prompt the model, the results will likely not be what the user is seeking. This can undermine confidence in the GAI model. Therefore, training on how to use the GAI model effectively is critical to its usefulness.
The primary problems that lawyers have had with non-legally trained GAI models are when facts or legal cases have been hallucinated, which effectively creates “false” content in the outputs, even though it might appear true to the user.5 This generally occurs due to limitations in the training data provided to the model. In hallucinating, the model effectively makes assumptions based on the patterns it has learned from the data, even though those patterns do not apply to the context of the situation. Therefore, the false outputs are simply inaccurate assumptions, which the model does not understand as inaccurate. The hallucination may statistically fit the prompt, but lack the “real world” grounding or “common sense” that a person would use to reject this response. Stated differently, GAI models hallucinate because they lack the “soul” necessary to differentiate truth from fiction.
So, beyond understanding the GAI models hallucinate, where do the pitfalls lie for lawyers who use GAI models? They lie in three main areas: (1) a failure to understand GAI’s limitations; (2) a failure to supervise the use of GAI; and (3) data security and confidentiality concerns.
The failure to understand GAI’s limitations
A lack of understanding regarding GAI’s limitations is the primary theme in many of the reported cases involving lawyers receiving sanctions when using GAI to create legal briefs that contain false facts or cases. The use of GAI requires oversight by the attorney employing it. Even legally trained GAI models require human oversight to confirm that the generated content is accurate. At best, the output must be considered a first draft, to be reviewed and corrected before it is shared with a client, opposing counsel, or a court.
Another limitation of GAI is that the output will generally only be as strong as the prompts that generate it. To that end, it is critical that attorneys using GAI be trained on how to properly prompt the model to get the results sought. For untrained lawyers using open AI models, there is a high risk that the generated content will not be what the lawyer seeks. More importantly, an untrained lawyer may not even realize that the output contains fallacies. While GAI can make the lawyer more efficient, most lawyers using it are not interested in accepting poor work product as the cost of this greater efficiency. And certainly, false content or poor work product may lead to future legal malpractice cases for attorneys who use GAI but fail to account for or understand its limitations.
The failure to supervise
Lawyers have a professional responsibility to supervise those who work for them. If lawyers permit the use of GAI within a law firm, there must be supervision of that usage. For the same reasons that lawyers must be vigilant in their own use of GAI, they must similarly train and supervise those in their employ on the use of GAI as well.
Further, there are many legally trained GAI models available in the marketplace. If a lawyer and their firm decide to use a particular model, it is incumbent upon the lawyer to ask questions and learn about the limitations of the selected model, and train and supervise the use of the model based on those limitations.
Legal malpractice claims frequently arise when lawyers or their staff are not properly trained, resulting in errors that impact the lawyer’s work product. Like any new technology, supervision over the use of GAI is therefore critical to avoiding liability for lawyers and law firms.
The failure to protect client information
Lawyers have a professional responsibility to protect the information and secrets of their clients. When using an open AI model like ChatGPT, any information shared with the model is used by the model as training data. As such, if client information is shared with an open AI model, it is clearly being shared with the public. Even if the user attempts to be vague in the data being shared, if enough information is shared, it is possible that the model may fill informational gaps with correct assumptions and effectively correctly presume that the information is about your client, even if you have not told this to the model. In this way, it may appear that the lawyer has revealed information about a client, even if that is not actually the case.
In addition, cybersecurity is critical when using AI models, as the same security issues that impact any material containing links to the internet are present with those models. Lawyers must account for these cybersecurity risks as the standard of care adjusts to the realities of the use of AI by lawyers and requires them to protect client information in the face of those risks.
The use of closed, legally trained GAI models is an attempt to address these risks. But, at the end of the day, the lawyers who use them must take steps to ensure that vendors are following through on their promise to protect client data.
Protection of client information and secrets remains fundamental to the services offered by lawyers to their clients. And certainly, if a client’s information does become public, this presents a potentially significant risk for lawyer liability.

1 Capek, Karel, R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots): A Fantastic Melodrama in Three Acts and an Epilogue 17 (Paul Selver and Nigel Playfair trans., Samuel French, Inc. 1923).
2 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36454, *1 (E.D.Pa. March 13, 2025)
3 Id.
4 But not necessarily legal research, which has led to the problematic usage of ChatGPT by attorneys.
5 The first reported case was Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F.Supp.3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). Since the model, there have been more than a dozen additional reported cases of lawyers relying on hallucinated case cites and being sanctioned under Rule 11 of the F.R.Civ.P.

Understanding OSHA’s Updated Site-Specific Targeting (SST) Inspection Plan

What You Need to Know:

OSHA’s Updated SST Plan Targets High-Risk Workplaces Using New Data: The revised Site-Specific Targeting (SST) Inspection Plan now relies on injury data from OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application (ITA), focusing on high-hazard, non-construction establishments with 20+ employees.
Key Changes Include More Inspections and Industry Focus: The plan expands the number of inspections and emphasizes industries with high injury rates, while dropping “record-only” inspections for sites mistakenly flagged.
Proactive Compliance Strategies Are Essential: Companies should prioritize accurate record-keeping, comprehensive safety training, internal audits and building a strong safety culture to ensure compliance and readiness for surprise inspections.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recently updated its Site-Specific Targeting (SST) Inspection Plan, a critical development for companies across various industries. This blog will cover the SST Plan, its recent changes, and practical steps to ensure compliance and readiness for inspections.
Site-Specific Targeting Inspection Plan Explained
The SST Inspection Plan is OSHA’s primary method for targeting high-hazard, non-construction workplaces with 20 or more employees. The Plan uses data from the OSHA Data Initiative (ODI) to identify establishments with high rates of injuries and illnesses. By focusing on these sites, OSHA aims to reduce workplace hazards and improve safety standards.
Key Changes in the Updated SST Plan
There are three important changes that the updated SST Plan introduces:

Data Utilization: The new plan places greater emphasis on data from the OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA) to identify establishments for inspection. This shift underscores the importance of maintaining accurate and timely injury and illness records. The SST Plan will select establishments for OSHA inspection based on data from Form 300A for the period 2021 to 2023.
Increased Inspections: The updated plan expands the scope of inspections, potentially increasing the number of establishments subject to review. This change highlights the need for companies to be prepared for inspections at any time. But there is some good news: now, if an establishment is targeted in error, OSHA won’t continue on with a “record-only” inspection. Rather, it will just leave the premises.
Focus on High-Risk Industries: The SST Plan now prioritizes non-construction industries with historically high rates of workplace injuries and illnesses. HR professionals and those involved with safety initiatives in these sectors should be particularly vigilant in ensuring compliance with OSHA standards.

Advice for Companies
To navigate the updated SST Plan effectively, companies should consider the following strategies:
1. Maintain Accurate Records
Accurate record-keeping is as crucial as ever under the new SST Plan. Companies should ensure that all injury and illness records are up-to-date and accurately reflect workplace incidents. This includes regular audits of OSHA 300 logs and ensuring that all required documentation is readily available for inspection.
2. Enhance Safety Training
Investing in comprehensive safety training programs is essential. HR professionals should work with safety officers to develop training sessions that address specific workplace hazards and promote safe practices. Regular training not only helps prevent accidents but also demonstrates a company’s commitment to safety, which can be beneficial during an OSHA inspection.
3. Conduct Internal Audits
Regular internal audits can help identify potential safety issues before they become problems. HR professionals should collaborate with safety teams to conduct thorough inspections of the workplace, ensuring compliance with OSHA standards. These audits can also serve as a valuable tool for preparing for potential OSHA inspections.
4. Foster a Safety Culture
Creating a culture of safety within the organization is perhaps the most effective way to ensure compliance with OSHA standards. Companies should encourage open communication about safety concerns and involve employees in safety planning and decision-making. Recognizing and rewarding safe practices can also motivate employees to prioritize safety in their daily activities.
The Importance of Compliance
Compliance with OSHA’s SST Plan is not just about avoiding fines and penalties; it is about ensuring the safety and well-being of employees. By understanding the updated SST Plan and implementing the strategies outlined above, companies can play a pivotal role in creating a safer workplace.
What the New SST Inspection Plan Means for Employers
The updated SST Inspection Plan represents a significant shift in OSHA’s approach to workplace safety. For companies, this means taking proactive steps to ensure compliance and readiness for inspections. By maintaining accurate records, enhancing safety training, conducting internal audits, and fostering a safety culture, companies can not only meet OSHA’s requirements but also create a safer, more productive work environment.

May 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
Jackson Lewis P.C. announced that Kelly Eisenlohr-Moul joined the firm’s Chicago office, bringing with her almost 20 years of employment and labor law experience.
Focusing her practice on restrictive covenant matters and complex employment litigation, Ms. Eisenlohr-Moul represents Fortune 100 companies in legal issues ranging from class action claims to individual disputes. She has experience with multiple industries, including finance, transportation, security and health care.
“We are thrilled to welcome Kelly to our office,” said Kirsten A. Milton, managing principal of the Chicago office. “She brings not only an impressive litigation background, but also a thoughtful, down-to-earth approach that clients truly value. Kelly’s experience and energy are a great fit for our team and we’re excited about all she brings to our office and to our clients.”
Ms. Eisenlohr-Moul also provides advice to employers on workplace matters, as well as to companies on internal investigations.
Sarah Wirskye joined Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP’s Government Enforcement & Investigations Practice Group in the firm’s Dallas office. She is the 11th attorney to join the office in the past year.
Ms. Wirskye has defended individuals and businesses in civil fraud and white-collar criminal disputes with the government for over 25 years, with an emphasis on the False Claims Act and customs and tax fraud, as well as healthcare fraud.
“Sarah’s arrival aligns with our strategic goal of expanding our government investigations work in Dallas and throughout Texas. Bradley is widely known for its capabilities in defending clients facing significant enforcement actions and investigations, and Sarah will be an excellent addition to this nationally recognized team,” said Bradley Dallas Office Managing Partner John A. Bonnett III. “She is an exceptional attorney with a proven record of success that will be beneficial to the work we are doing for our clients.”
Quarles & Brady LLP announced that Li Zhu, an intellectual property attorney, rejoined the firm’s Washington, D.C., office as a partner.
Dual-qualified in the U.S. and China, Ms. Zhu helps brands protect and enforce their IP across borders. She brings to the firm her extensive experience in cross-border enforcement campaigns to stop unauthorized sales and dismantle counterfeit networks.
“Li’s experience has proven to be a valuable and a differentiating asset for our clients and we are thrilled to welcome her back to Quarles,” said Lori Ruhly, national co-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group. “Her strength in IP rights in Asian countries is needed and provides strategic guidance that will benefit many of our clients.”
Legal Industry Awards and Recognition
Brad Evans and Devon Williams, Co-Managing Directors at Ward and Smith, P.A., were named to Business North Carolina’s 2025 Power List. The publication is an annual roundup of the most influential leaders across various industries in the state.
Mr. Evans handles complex intellectual property, business, professional licensing and estate disputes. He was inducted into the American Board of Trial Advocates in 2023, an honor reserved for experienced trial lawyers, as well as being a certified mediator with the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Ms. Williams focuses her practice on employment and labor matters, working with clients in the cannabis, hemp and alcoholic beverages industries. In addition to her current honor on the 2025 Power List, she has also been named a “Managing Partner to Watch” two years in a row by North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP announced that the firm’s Private Wealth practice received the Magic Circle Awards from Citywealth, a UK-based media company, in the categories of International Law Firm of the Year and UHNW (ultra-high-net-worth) Private Client Services of the Year.
The company recognizes top-performing advisors and managers in global private wealth, including attorneys and law firms. The firm was selected based on nominations demonstrating firm performance and innovative client services.
“These honors are a testament to the strength and depth of our premier Private Wealth team,” said Joshua S. Rubenstein, national chair of Katten’s Private Wealth practice. “Whether advising on estate planning, fiduciary litigation or sophisticated multijurisdictional legal and tax matters, our attorneys are trusted by ultra-high-net-worth clients worldwide for delivering strategic counsel and exceptional service.”
Mayer Brown LLP was named “ABS Law Firm of the Year” for the fifth consecutive year, as well as “ESG Law Firm of the Year,” at GlobalCapital’s US Securitization Awards. The awards honor innovative and impactful achievements in structured finance in the United States.
The firm boasts one of the world’s largest structured finance practices and has securitized nearly every asset type. The team’s experience includes private placements, warehouse facilities, asset purchases, collateralized fund obligations and other investments.
DEI and Women in Law
Bracewell LLP announced that senior associate Amelia Bowring won the Private Practice Rising Star Award at the 2025 Middle East Legal Awards, which celebrates outstanding legal achievements across the Middle East region.
Ms. Bowring assists Dubai Managing Partner Chris Williams and is seasoned in a wide range of commercial contract work, corporate advisory and cross-border transactions. In addition, she serves as the primary liaison between the firm and Sony Music.
Tina Dorr, an intellectual property partner in Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Atlanta office, was named one of the “25 Most Influential Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Georgia” for 2025 by Georgia Asian Times. She was recognized for her leadership in both the AAPI and legal communities.
Currently serving as a board member for the Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association, Ms Dorr has helped expand the organization’s impact. In addition, she serves in leadership roles with the Intellectual Property Owners Association and Georgia Tech. Her development of sophisticated IP strategies has protected innovation and elevated brands.
Moore & Van Allen announced that Karin McGinnis, co-head of Privacy & Data Security, was named to the 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Cyber Lawyers.
The guide honors top legal professionals across the globe who are shaping the future of data protection and digital law. Ms. McGinnis’ inclusion shows professional excellence as well as contributions to the legal community and innovation in the cybersecurity field.

Growth Management: Moving Small to Mid-Sized Law Firms Out of Start-Up

The business life cycle of a small/mid-sized law firm is often significantly different from the life cycle of other industries. Product companies, for example, have a life cycle that depends on the sustainability of their existing market offerings combined with their ability to innovate and create new offerings. These companies can make long-term strategic investments, change management and, if necessary, completely remake themselves.
Conversely, most small and mid-sized law firms are tied to their equity members’ ability to practice law, originate revenues, and adapt to legal industry developments. These firms usually have little flexibility in dealing with abrupt market changes, poor management or long-term strategic plans.
Because small and mid-sized law firms are owner-operated businesses and rely on equity partners or members to generate revenue, there isn’t time for them to develop systems or pursue long-term priorities. Rarely is there a person, much less a team, whose only responsibility is managing the development of the firm.
Equity partners have little interest in investing in future initiatives that involve short-term risk and deferred profits. A 5-year aggressive growth plan is not attractive to a 60-year-old member at the top of her earnings capacity who needs her current income to max out retirement savings.
Moreover, there is no market in the United States for outside capital investment in law firms (investors seeking financial returns only). The ABA currently does not approve of any models of law firm ownership by non-lawyers. And since most young lawyers do not have the net worth to underwrite long-term strategies that may or may not pay off, senior partner net worth is a vital component of the long-term plans of small and mid-sized law firms.
For these reasons, it is easy to see why small and mid-sized law firms fixate on current profits to the detriment of longer-term goals. Rather than invest in the future, they apply all earnings to partner compensation.
While it may be surprising that small and mid-sized law firms progress at all, most firms do follow a path resembling a business life cycle. When PerformLaw works with law firms that wish to develop into better organizations, we start with the following outline to assess their position on the business life cycle and to guide our recommendations:

To firmly establish the firm in the legal market requires a growth management plan including the following components:
A Focused Start Managing Growth
As with any new company’s start-up, a law firm’s founding partner(s) should first define a vision (long-term future goal), a mission (present business approach to realize the vision), as well as initial financial and strategic objectives (to be revised over the cause of the firm’s existence).
Financial objectives focus on targeted revenues, costs, profit margins, etc. Strategic objectives are long-term competitive positioning goals. Among others, these could include market share, technological leadership, brand name value, and client satisfaction. After giving the firm its purpose, defining the law firm operational strategy is next.
This step should include the following basic elements:

Business Plan
Financial Plan
Entity Creation
Operating Agreement
Office & IT Infrastructure
Software and Apps
Website Development
Compensation and benefit planning

Since the need to generate revenue and positive cash flow is primary, some of these elements remain a work in progress after startup. Beyond billing and collections, high-level business administration develops at a slower pace and requires additional skills. Advanced skill set either come from new hires or outside resources.
Once profits occur on a consistent basis, a growth phase typically starts and requires the firm to move to a professional business management approach, which is less reliant on the firm’s equity members.
Scale and Manage Sustainable Growth
To scale and manage growth successfully, we recommend that law firms determine their projected income versus the projected expenses required to pursue their objectives. Additionally, firms should require members to consider what investments are needed to sustain and grow their revenues and profits.
These investments include operational and marketing components.
Operational investments include:

Staffing mix,
Infrastructure investments,
Practice tools, and
Systems.

Meeting these needs using a combination of in-house resources, outsourced services, and software applications is recommended.
All marketing investments include all components of a law firm’s marketing plan, which are listed and displayed in the graphic below:

Marketing Strategy
Budget & Activity Plan
Contact Management
Metrics

We recommend the same approach to meet the firm’s marketing needs: a combination of in-house resources, outsourced services, and software applications.
This basic planning process and related investments should result in two major benefits:

An operational team with clear legal and non-legal functions and responsibilities
Brand awareness and service differentiation, resulting in a competitive advantage.

Regardless of how a firm chooses to manage a growth phase, we highly recommend these steps to ensure sustainable organizational growth. Using this recommended approach promotes the firm’s brand, supports a healthy cost structure, and promotes the long-term stability of the law firm.

P R E S E N T A T I O N
Here is a helpful presentation that walks you through the various steps of a law firm’s growth and development – from a start-up firm to a firm that exhibits sustainable growth.
Click on the image or presentation link below to view the slides. A link to a video of us explaining each of the slides can be found on Slide 2:

Or click here to view and download the “Moving the Small and Mid-Sized Law Firm Out of Start-Up” presentation.