If you’re thinking of hanging your own shingle in 2026, know there’s plenty of upside: A Clio survey shows that legal entrepreneurs are happier with their client relationships, their mental and emotional wellness, and their overall professional lives. The Federal Bar Association, meanwhile, described the solo attorney as the “surprising outlier” to a “profession long plagued by burnout, stress, and mounting dissatisfaction,” citing data from ALPS Insurance: 74 percent of solo practitioners are satisfied (or very satisfied) with their current professional lives; only 9 percent are dissatisfied to any degree. 66 percent appreciate the flexibility of the gig, which contributes to “personal fulfillment and enjoyment.” To be sure, this elevated state of entrepreneurship isn’t a given; it takes considerable work and, often, more than a bit of good luck. But aspiring law firm owners can set up for success with a few foundational steps early: Before You Launch Start with a simple business plan. This doesn’t have to be overly complicated; in fact, the simpler the better. But by taking the time to write down a simple framework for your business, you will be able to focus your time, energy and resources in your critical first year. What is our basic positioning? (We do X for Y) Who is our ideal client? Why are we an ideal solution for them? Why are we a better choice than our peers? Where do we want to be in three to five years? Don’t forget to make some eliminations here, too. As the saying goes, “The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.” What cases and clients will you purposefully not accept? Where are you truly not a great option? (Think about building referral relationships here.) Invest in a strong first impression. Your logo and website should give confidence to both you and your clients. This is becoming increasingly important with your younger clients, who are more likely to do their own research than rely on referrals. Indeed, Gen Z and Millennial clients care more about a lawyer’s website (49 percent and 48 percent, respectively) than Gen X and Boomers (34 percent and 21 percent, respectively). I participated in a panel discussion with Missouri Lawyers Weekly, “From Attorney to Entrepreneur,” and one new legal entrepreneur said she decided to build a solid visual identity early because she wanted her clients to feel safe and secure despite choosing a brand new law firm. A clean, modern, professional—and mobile-friendly!—website signals that you are serious. Beware the pitfalls that abound in the marketing arena: Avoid DIY design tools that may leave you not owning your firm’s mark. Similarly, make sure you own, not rent, your website and URL. Make sure your website vendor uses a common, accessible CMS like WordPress, so you are not hostage to a proprietary platform. Determine what (and when) to delegate. You are an excellent lawyer, but owning a business carries a new set of demands, from invoicing to social media to fixing the dang printer. These administrative tasks pile up: According to Thomson Reuters, attorneys in small firms spend about 60 percent of their time practicing law, while solos spend just 55 percent of their time practicing law. The administrative burden of running a firm not only takes away from your billable time, it takes brain space and emotional energy. (And “winging it” can bring costly mistakes when it comes to your financial records and taxes.) Think about the business side of the firm, and start a list of the allies you may need. If your first call is to a virtual CFO or law firm financial planner, they can help you project when cash flow will allow you to hire additional experts. After You Launch Make sure people know how to find your firm. Your new law firm has no digital footprint. Set up your startup firm on Google Business and Bing Places for Business, or look at a service like Yext that can manage your business listings on a variety of platforms. Meanwhile, make sure you capture people who may search for your name, not the firm’s; these may be referrals or old connections you missed in the outreach campaign. We want to make sure they find you at your new firm (and not call the old place). Updating your LinkedIn profile is a must; I recommend putting a press release about the firm launch on a search-engine-friendly distribution service like PRWeb. Make direct outreach. Make a list of everyone you know. Mine your current email contacts, and download your LinkedIn connections. Then sort them into groups: Hot Contacts: These can be people who match your ideal client profile right now (remember doing that above?) or people who are in direct contact with your ideal client profile. In short, these are the humans you know in the best position to give you business. (Make sure to mind solicitation guidelines if you are in a consumer-facing practice.) Warm Contacts: These are people who may enter your ideal client profile at some point, or people who are one or two degrees removed. For example, if you are typically hired by CEOs, this list could be vice presidents or department heads. Cold Contacts: These are the people you can’t imagine giving you business. Reach out to them anyway. You never know what they (or their network) are sitting on, and your new business will not suffer from more people knowing what you do. After you sort them, reach out. My first day “open for business,” I emailed the hot contacts; the second day, the warm contacts; the third day, the cold contacts. Make these individual and personal. In your words, the email should convey: “Here’s what I’m doing now.” Set the table, and make it straightforward. I wanted to reach out to tell you I’ve started my own firm, Clark Kent & Associates. “Keep me in mind for … ” This is the most important part: It’s where you tell your network the kind of work you want to do and for whom you want to do it. Please keep me in mind for trademark prosecution or litigation involving consumer brands. “Here’s why you can trust me.” Reinforce your credentials. Not all of your contacts are intimately familiar with your expertise, and even those that are could use a reminder. Over the past decade, I’ve managed trademark portfolios for companies in retail, hospitality, and the beauty industry. I’ve been recognized by World Trademark Review and Best Lawyers in America. “Here’s why I’m doing this.” Share the passion that led you to start your own firm, and why working with you is better than the alternatives. I believe trademark clients are better served by a flat-fee model, and I’m excited to launch a firm with predictable pricing and no budget surprises. “Here’s how to learn more … ” Invite them to learn more, and thank them for their attention. This is where you can also insert some personalization (e.g., it was great to see you last month, hope the kids are well, how about those Chiefs). You can learn more about my new firm at [link]. Thank you for your consideration, and best wishes for the year ahead. Focus your social media. There are myriad ways to publicize your new firm on social media, but remember, you have a firm to run now. It’s OK to not be on every platform; it’s far better to pick one strategic option and be consistent there. LinkedIn is a natural fit for many new law firms, as your referral sources and business clients are already there. If your ideal client skews more toward young consumers, there are opportunities on Instagram and TikTok. (Although producing visually engaging, algorithm-pleasing content is more work than many expect.) Think about where your clients are, and show up consistently there. (For other platforms, consider claiming your name/handle, and make a post showing where they can find you and your firm updates.) Update your rankings and credentials. If you have been recognized by Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers, Benchmark Litigation, or so on, reach out and let them know about the new firm. This is increasingly important as AI tools like ChatGPT are shown to scour attorney ranking sites for their search output. Have entrepreneur friends. Running your own business is hard. It’s freeing and affirming and often fun, but it’s also hard. According to Forbes, 50.2 percent of entrepreneurs struggle with anxiety; 45.8 percent deal with high stress; and 26.9 percent feel lonely or isolated. It’s imperative to have friends who can relate—friends who understand the pressure of making payroll, friends who can celebrate the wins, and friends who can tell you how they fixed such-and-such. If you don’t have those people in your circle yet, explore your bar association’s Solo/Small Firm Section, or drop by a startup networking group in your community. (Or reach out to me, I’ve been there too.) Let your network help you. Your friends and family will be excited for you (and they should be, starting a firm is a big deal!). You will get some questions along the lines of “How can we help?” Have some answers ready for your contacts who won’t necessarily be clients Some examples: Follow your new firm on social media. Share or comment on your announcement post. Visit your website to show Google there’s interest. If your contacts are attorneys, they can endorse you on Avvo or Martindale. One final note: Everyone will want to buy you lunch when you have “just started out.” Those offers will dry up after a few months. Take the lunches. 

If you feel like you’re always racing to keep pace with your law firm’s ever-expanding content calendar, it’s not your imagination. Consistently producing high-quality blogs, engaging newsletters, and compelling social media posts takes significant bandwidth, something few legal marketers can spare. No wonder firms are increasingly turning to Artificial Intelligence to lighten the load. When leveraged in concert with human creativity, the right AI-powered tools can transform even the worst content bottleneck into a far more efficient workflow. AI Tools to Streamline Content Creation Few marketing activities require more time and focus than content creation. It’s an ongoing cycle of research, writing, editing, and approvals that can easily stretch from hours into days. But these generative AI tools are quickly changing that dynamic, streamlining processes, taking on routine tasks, and leaving marketers free to focus on what matters most: Jasper From brainstorming blog topics and producing initial drafts to crafting social media captions and repurposing content for a monthly newsletter, this end-to-end marketing platform improves efficiency across the entire content life cycle. Once given clear direction on brand guidelines and context-rich prompts, Jasper can quickly generate engaging content aligned with your firm’s voice, tone, and strategic goals. ChatGPT A powerful AI platform with wide-ranging content generation capabilities. ChatGPT can help your firm produce high-quality first drafts for legal articles, blog posts, and email communications. CoCounsel by Thomson Reuters CoCounsel uses trusted databases like Westlaw to create accurate, authoritative legal content. Perfect for client alerts, thought leadership, and regulatory updates, it streamlines content creation while minimizing factual errors. Clio Duo This platform leverages generative AI to distill complex legal documents, case files, and judicial decisions into clear, client-friendly summaries for newsletters, blog posts, and case studies. MyCase IQ MyCase IQ analyzes large volumes of legal documents, converting dense text into plain-language insights that you can use to highlight results, outcomes, or evolving trends within your firm’s practice areas. Grammarly The premium version goes beyond a simple grammar check, offering real-time suggestions on tone, clarity, and style. Integrating it into your workflow ensures every communication is polished, professional, and error-free. AI-Powered SEO and Market Research Creating great content is only half the battle; potential clients still need to find it online. These AI-powered SEO and research tools help ensure you get the right content in front of the right audience at the right time: Surfer SEO Surfer SEO uses AI to analyze top-ranking content for your keywords and provide data-driven recommendations. By assisting with structure optimization, keyword density, readability, and semantic relevance, this platform helps improve Google rankings without sacrificing tone or authority. Clearscope Clearscope uses advanced natural language processing to refine your keyword targeting and improve topical depth. It scores your content based on readability, keyword variety, and competitive benchmarks, then offers practical suggestions to help it stand out in search. Darrow Darrow leverages the predictive power of AI to analyze massive datasets for legal, regulatory, and litigation trends. By identifying emerging topics before they become mainstream, it allows your firm to publish timely, relevant content ahead of its competitors. AI-Enhanced Analytics and Performance Tracking Even the most well-written content won’t move the needle if you can’t measure its impact. These AI analytics tools help you evaluate performance, identify opportunities, and refine your strategy for stronger results. Semrush By integrating AI into its position tracking, Semrush allows you to track how your firm appears in AI-generated answer formats and across different AI-powered interfaces, including ChatGPT and Gemini. Ahrefs Known for its powerful SEO and backlink analysis, Ahrefs uses AI-powered tools to analyze content for topic coverage, generate SEO-optimized content ideas and outlines, automate keyword research, detect AI-generated content, and monitor brand presence in AI overviews Client Engagement and Lead Generation Tools AI doesn’t just assist with content creation. The following tools transform how your firm communicates with clients and prospects, ensuring every communication and interaction feels relevant and timely. HubSpot A full-scale CRM and marketing automation platform, HubSpot enables law firms to create highly personalized email campaigns based on client behavior, practice area, or life-cycle stage. You can automate follow-ups, segment audiences, and track engagement, all from a single dashboard, helping your team nurture relationships and convert leads more efficiently. ActiveCampaign This platform utilizes AI agents to generate marketing content, automate campaigns, and provide insights for personalized strategies. Legal marketers can leverage these features to analyze audience behavior, predict trends, and automate tailored message delivery across different channels. Lately AI Lately relies on AI to repurpose long-form content into social posts optimized for various platforms. It identifies the most engaging excerpts from articles, videos, or podcasts, then turns them into shareable snippets—helping your firm maintain a consistent presence without overloading your marketing team. Buffer Buffer simplifies the management of multiple social media accounts, allowing your firm to plan, schedule, and publish posts in advance. Its AI analytics track engagement and performance, so you can identify which content resonates most with your audience and when it’s best to post. Using AI Responsibly in Legal Marketing While there’s no doubt AI can dramatically improve your team’s productivity, it’s no substitute for human judgment. Every piece of content generated with AI should be reviewed and approved by an experienced attorney to ensure it meets the highest ethical, confidentiality, and professional standards. Start small. Begin with a pilot project in one practice area or campaign to understand how AI performs within your firm’s workflow. Use this phase to identify strengths, address limitations, and refine internal processes before scaling. Establish clear guidelines. Create firm-wide policies that define where and how AI can be used. Clarify which types of content are appropriate for AI assistance (e.g., social media captions or blog drafts) and which require a fully human approach, such as legal analyses or opinion pieces. Maintain rigorous quality control. Implement multi-step review and approval workflows to ensure every AI-assisted piece meets your firm’s standards for accuracy, tone, and compliance. Incorporate legal review into your content pipeline early, not just at the end. Train your team. Education is critical. Make sure everyone, from marketing staff to attorneys, understands both the potential and limitations of AI. Provide regular training on prompt development, ethical guidelines, and privacy considerations. Takeaway When used strategically, Artificial Intelligence doesn’t replace your marketing team; it strengthens it. Pairing automation with human expertise will allow you to achieve the best possible results: more engaging content, greater efficiency, and the assurance that every piece you publish accurately reflects your firm’s brand voice and its high standards of professional integrity. 

A systematic approach to BD doesn’t kill creativity. It enables it. Most firms treat business development like an instinct. You either have it or you don’t. But relying on natural rainmakers is risky. What happens when they retire, leave, or burn out? It also creates ego-driven cultures where the firm’s best interests take a back seat to the rainmakers. For most people, business development isn’t magic. It’s a process. And when you build it systematically, it can scale beyond personality and luck. 1. Start with a Method Charisma may win the first meeting, but structure builds the pipeline. Every firm needs a defined process for relationship development that clarifies expectations, focus, and follow-through. If you don’t already have one in place, try The Short List Method. (It’s simple, repeatable, and turns BD from guesswork into discipline): Identify your SMART goal. What are you trying to accomplish this quarter—more referrals, new logos, or upmarket traction? Make sure your goal is specific, measurable, actionable, realistic, and time-bound. Create your Short List. Choose 9–35 key relationships that are critical to achieving your SMART goal. They should include key Clients, Prospects, and Connectors (both internal and external). Nurture your Short List through helpful, personalized outreach: introductions, insights, invitations, and relevant check-ins. “Spray and pray” email sequences don’t build trust. Play the long game. Our research shows it takes an average of fourteen interactions from first contact to first contract, but most people stop after just a few. Track your activity. Use a CRM or pipeline management system to keep your outreach consistent and visible. When your team follows this framework, BD stops being random. It becomes intentional, measurable, and manageable. 2. Build Momentum into Firm Culture The best BD systems don’t rely on motivation. They rely on momentum. Too many professionals say they’ll “get to BD when things slow down.” But they never do. Firms that win make BD part of firm culture: Incentivize business development properly. Your compensation structure communicates priorities. If the reward for BD is minimal, expect minimal effort. Create accountability that inspires. Regular coaching and mentoring are key. To make it scalable, introduce peer coaching or BD pods that make growth a shared responsibility. Professionals stay engaged when they see others doing the same work. Schedule regular outreach blocks. Even a 30-minute block each week can move the needle. Consistency matters more than intensity. When BD becomes part of how your team evaluates success, it shifts from a “nice to have” to a cultural expectation. 3. Measure What Matters If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it. Most firms still rely on lagging metrics like new matters, new revenue, and hours billed. Those are important, but they only tell you what already happened. A systematic BD process also tracks leading indicators: Number of proactive outreach actions Relationship engagement consistency New introductions or opportunities generated These metrics reveal what’s working early, so you can course-correct before the quarter slips away. 4. Build Feedback Loops that Reinforce Progress A system without feedback is just a checklist. People need to see that their efforts are paying off. You can strengthen feedback loops by: Inviting your team to shadow you on pitch calls and meetings. Give them a defined role, then debrief afterward so they can learn from what worked and what didn’t. Acknowledging and encouraging effort, even small wins. Many of your rising stars are still developing their BD skills, and encouragement from leadership goes a long way. Sharing wins firmwide, even if it’s just a reconnection that led to a referral or proposal. Celebrating effort metrics (number of meaningful touchpoints) alongside revenue metrics. Leading indicators like interactions are as critical as lagging ones like new engagements. Using your CRM or relationship tracker to spotlight what’s working and where the pipeline is leaking. Visible progress sustains engagement. When professionals see cause and effect, they double down. 5. Coach the System, Not Just the People Firm leaders should reinforce The Short List Method at every level—from onboarding to partner development. That means: Embedding BD goals into performance plans Training new professionals to build their own Short List Rewarding consistency and collaboration, not just big wins Recognizing when internal resources aren’t producing the results you want, and outsourcing to professional BD coaches who can accelerate progress When the system is institutionalized, BD becomes part of how the firm operates, not an afterthought. Final Thoughts A systematic approach to BD doesn’t kill creativity. It enables it. When professionals have structure, they’re freed from the guesswork and can focus on what they do best: building trust with clients, current and future. With The Short List Method as your foundation, BD stops depending on luck, personality, or “natural rainmakers.” It becomes a reliable, firmwide growth engine. 

Last week, the American Arbitration Association announced something that should have every lawyer cheering: an AI-powered arbitrator for construction disputes that promises to cut costs by 35% and resolution time by 20%. Instead, the legal profession clutched its pearls. Critics warned of depersonalized justice, algorithmic bias, and the death of advocacy as we know it. They’re missing the point entirely. The real crisis isn’t AI making decisions. It’s that our current system has priced most Americans out of justice altogether. For far too long, the powers that be have argued that the solution to the access to justice crisis is more pro bono work. It’s not. The solution is reforming the way neutrals process cases. Hearings on the merits are good for justice. Disputes can be resolved on right and wrong and not just might making right. The System Is Already Broken Right now, someone with a legitimate $50,000 construction dispute faces an impossible calculation. Traditional arbitration will cost them $15,000 to $30,000 in fees before their lawyer even opens a file. A court case? Add two to three years to the timeline and double the cost. For many claimants, the math is simple: the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. They walk away from valid claims because the system designed to resolve disputes has become too expensive and too slow to access. This isn’t theoretical. Civil cases wait years for their day in court. Plaintiffs with serious injuries can’t get to a jury. Defendants who could prove their innocence in months instead spend years under the cloud of unresolved accusations. Families navigate divorces in a system so clogged that temporary orders become semi-permanent arrangements. The promise of justice delayed is justice denied has become our legal system’s operating principle. When resolution takes years and costs six figures, only corporations and the wealthy can afford to see cases through to completion. Everyone else settles for whatever they can get or abandons their claims entirely. What the AAA Actually Built The AAA’s AI arbitrator, set to launch in November for construction disputes, promises something the legal profession should celebrate: resolution in months, not years, at a fraction of traditional costs. The system claims 35% cost savings and 20% time savings for document-based construction disputes. Those aren’t incremental improvements. They’re transformative. More importantly, the AAA designed this system the right way. It keeps humans in the loop. It operates transparently. It builds on 99 years of arbitration expertise rather than trying to replace human judgment entirely. The AI analyzes documents, identifies issues, and suggests resolutions. Human arbitrators validate the outputs and make final decisions. This isn’t science fiction. It’s practical technology applied to a real problem: too many legitimate disputes never get resolved because the traditional process costs too much and takes too long. The Hypocrisy of Legal AI Critics Here’s what makes the criticism especially rich: lawyers already use AI constantly. We use AI-powered research tools to find cases. We use predictive analytics to value settlements. We use document review platforms that deploy machine learning to identify relevant materials. Large firms have used these technologies for years to deliver faster, cheaper services to corporate clients. But suggest using similar technology to make dispute resolution accessible to regular people, and suddenly we’re destroying the sanctity of the legal profession. The objection isn’t to AI in law. It’s to AI making legal services affordable for those who currently can’t access them. The legal profession’s resistance to accessible AI isn’t about protecting justice. It’s about protecting billable hours. Speed Matters More Than Lawyers Admit The legal profession has convinced itself that slower is more careful, that every case needs years of discovery and motion practice to reach just outcomes. This is self-serving nonsense. Many disputes don’t need exhaustive litigation. They need resolution. A homeowner fighting with a contractor over $30,000 in defective work doesn’t need three years of document requests and depositions. They need someone neutral to review the contract, inspect the work, and make a decision. The AI arbitrator can facilitate that process in months. An injured plaintiff watching their medical bills pile up while waiting for a court date three years away doesn’t benefit from our deliberate pace. They need their case heard while the evidence is fresh and before financial desperation forces an unfavorable settlement. Families in divorce proceedings watching their children grow up amid unresolved custody disputes don’t need more process. They need finality so everyone can move forward. The legal system’s addiction to process serves lawyers’ economic interests more than clients’ actual needs. We’ve built a professional moat around dispute resolution and convinced ourselves it’s a temple of justice. The Real Question About Bias Critics worry about algorithmic bias in AI systems, and those concerns deserve serious attention. But let’s be honest about the bias baked into our current system. Our traditional process is biased toward those who can afford to wait and pay. It’s biased toward corporate defendants who can outspend individual plaintiffs. It’s biased toward parties with resources to conduct extensive discovery, hire expensive experts, and file endless motions. The AAA’s approach includes human oversight specifically to catch AI errors and ensure fair outcomes. That’s more transparency and accountability than exists in many human arbitrations, where arbitrators provide minimal reasoning for their decisions and appeals are nearly impossible. Perfect is the enemy of good. If we wait for flawless AI systems before deploying them, we perpetuate a human system that’s already deeply flawed and fundamentally inaccessible to most people who need it. What This Means for Access to Justice The AAA’s AI arbitrator points toward a future where dispute resolution could actually be accessible. Imagine a system where a small business cheated by a vendor could get binding resolution in six months for $5,000. Where a homeowner could enforce warranty rights without mortgaging their house to pay legal fees. Where injured parties could get compensated while they’re still dealing with medical treatment rather than years later. This isn’t about replacing lawyers or eliminating advocacy. It’s about creating a tier of dispute resolution that currently doesn’t exist. A tier between “figure it out yourself” and “spend $50,000 on lawyers.” A tier that could handle thousands of legitimate disputes that our current system simply abandons. The technology exists right now. The AAA is deploying it. Courts should be racing to follow, not throwing up roadblocks in the name of protecting professional standards that mostly protect professional incomes. The Path Forward The legal profession needs to stop treating efficiency as the enemy of justice. We need to acknowledge that our current system fails most people most of the time. We need to embrace technology that can make legal services accessible rather than defending a status quo that serves lawyers better than clients. The AAA isn’t proposing AI judges for murder trials or complex commercial litigation. They’re using technology to resolve document-based construction disputes faster and cheaper than traditional methods. This is exactly the kind of measured, supervised deployment that should guide legal AI development across the entire justice system. If it works as promised, every area of law should be asking what comes next. Small claims. Small personal injury cases. Simple contract cases. Consumer complaints. Family law matters. Employment disputes. There’s a massive universe of legal disputes that could be resolved faster, cheaper, and better with the right technology and appropriate human oversight. The alternative is continuing to tell millions of Americans with legitimate legal claims that justice is available only if they can afford to wait years and spend tens of thousands of dollars. That’s not a system worth defending. That’s a system begging for disruption. The wheels of justice grind slowly, we tell ourselves, but they grind exceedingly fine. The truth is, they grind so slowly that most people never reach them at all. The AAA’s AI arbitrator is a step in the right direction. Every lawyer who cares about actual access to justice rather than theoretical access should be asking: what dispute resolution problem can we solve next? The legal profession should be leading this transformation, not standing in its way. 

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Arbitration Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) __ Cal.5th __, 2025 WL 2302229: The California Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the Court of Appeal. It affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision concluding that California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98 is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). But the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and disapproved numerous recent Court of Appeal decisions, concluding that section 1281.98 does not require an automatic loss of contractual arbitration rights whenever a party fails to pay arbitration fees within 30 days, finding no indication that the Legislature intended to strip companies and employers of their contractual right to arbitration where nonpayment of fees results from a good faith mistake, inadvertence, or other excusable neglect. Section 1281.98 does not displace background statutes permitting relief to a breaching party in certain circumstances. The Court of Appeal was directed to remand the matter to the trial court for consideration of whether defendant might be excused for its failure to timely pay arbitration fees, such that the stay of litigation should not be lifted and the parties should be returned to arbitration, and whether the delay resulted in compensable harm to plaintiff. (August 11, 2025.) Employment Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) __ Cal.5th __, 2025 WL 2414467: The California Supreme Court addressed the good faith defense of employers to the default rule that employees who prove minimum wage violations are entitled to liquidated damages under Labor Code, § 1194.2, and whether a trial court may consider a claim under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (§ 245 et seq.; the “Paid Sick Leave law”) that an employee raises in the context of their employer’s appeal to the superior court of a Labor Commissioner ruling. (§ 98.2, subd. (a).) The California Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeal on both issues, ruling that ignorance of the law is insufficient to prove a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2, and also concluding that employees may raise Paid Sick Leave claims in an appeal by the employer of a Labor Commissioner’s Ruling. CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Attorneys County of Los Angeles v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 29874701: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the defendant law firm seeking a declaratory relief judgment finding there was no valid engagement agreement between defendant law firm and county plaintiffs, even though an engagement agreement had been signed by then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva. The central issue dispute was whether or not then-Sheriff Villanueva had the authority to retain–as opposed to select–independent counsel to represent him in a lawsuit the County of Los Angeles brought against Villanueva. Defendant law firm sought recovery of over $1.7 million in legal fees and costs. The trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, finding that Sheriff Alex Villanueva lacked authority to enter into a fee agreement with defendant. It denied defendant’s post-judgment motion to file a cross-complaint as untimely and made in bad faith, and it dismissed defendant’s separate suit for payment as barred by the compulsory cross-complaint statute and the Government Claims Act. The Court of Appeal agreed, concluding that the sheriff had no authority to retain defendant firm, that the motion for leave to file a cross-complaint was properly denied, and that defendant firm’s later lawsuit was correctly dismissed for failure to comply with procedural requirements. (C.A. 2nd, October 23, 2025.) Elder Abuse Frankland v. Etehad (2025) __ Cal.App.5th __, 2025 WL 2267750: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts’ order sustaining defendant doctor’s demurrer to plaintiff’s causes of action alleging neglect and financial abuse under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the Act; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, concluding that an elder cannot state a claim under the Act for “neglect” or “financial abuse” against a physician based solely on that physician’s negligent medical services while the elder resided at a skilled nursing facility. The Act limits “neglect” to “[t]he negligent failure of any person having the care or custody of any elder . . .” (§ 15610.57, subd. (a)(1), italics added), and a physician’s conduct in providing negligent medical services to an elder residing at a skilled nursing facility does not—without more—constitute “neglect” because that physician lacks the requisite “robust caretaking or custodial relationship” with the elder. Moreover, the alleged financial abuse flows inexorably from the alleged professional negligence, such abuse is indistinguishable from that negligence and also falls outside the Act. (C.A. 2nd, August 8, 2025.) Employment Galarsa v. Dolgen California (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 2846580: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and its petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn the trial court ruling. The trial court held that an employee could pursue a “headless” PAGA action—one seeking penalties only for Labor Code violations suffered by other employees—and that the question of whether the plaintiff was an “aggrieved employee” need not be arbitrated. The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that under the version of PAGA in effect before the 2024 amendments, employees could bring such representative actions and that the arbitration agreement did not extend to determining PAGA standing, since that dispute belongs to the State’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency, not the individual plaintiff. (C.A. 5th, filed September 9, 2025, published October 8, 2025.) Land Use New Commune DTLA LLC et al. v. City Redondo Beach et al. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 2886322: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of mandate challenging defendant’s housing element adopted under the state Housing Element Law (Housing Element Law; Government Code sections 65580 to 65589.11). The trial court ruled that defendant’s housing element complied with the Housing Element Law despite plaintiffs’ claims that it improperly relied on a zoning “overlay” permitting residential use on commercial and industrial land. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that defendant’s overlay violated Government Code section 65583.2(h)(2) because it failed to impose mandatory minimum residential densities and allowed development without any housing, and that defendant failed to establish that one of the sites identified in the housing element, the Inglewood Avenue site currently occupied by a Vons supermarket, was properly identified as a developable site. (C.A. 2nd, October 10, 2025.)