Industry Insight

Generating business is a priority for almost all law firms, especially small and solo practices. Sure, it’s nice for your website to get lots of views, but the end goal of your marketing efforts is to help the people you can best help connect with and become clients of your practice. It’s frustrating and disheartening to prepare for a scheduled consultation only to have a prospective client cancel at the last minute, or worse, simply fail to show up. Lead magnets can improve lead quality by educating prospective clients beforehand and building trust. When a prospective client has learned something useful from your firm, even before speaking to you, a consultation feels like a continuation of the value they’ve already received. That’s likely to increase their commitment and follow-through. What is a Lead Magnet? A lead magnet is something of value that you offer in exchange for the person’s contact information. It’s not a sales pitch or promotional material; it’s something your audience perceives as a benefit. Ideally, a lead magnet is genuinely useful content that answers a specific question or solves a problem. If you’ve ever been online and clicked a button to get a free downloadable guide or eBook, you’ve been attracted by a lead magnet. Chances are that the offer addressed a particular need, interest, or pain point of yours. You can do the same for the people you hope will become your clients. Seven Effective Law Firm Lead Magnets When someone is facing a legal issue, they are often navigating uncharted territory. The legal knowledge you have can help them feel more in control of their situation. A lead magnet allows them to “sample” your knowledge with very little investment, boosts your credibility, and encourages them to come back for more. Some of the most effective law firm lead magnets include:  eBooks: An eBook is an in-depth electronic guide that covers a legal topic, such as “Everything You Need to Know About Filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy” or “A Guide to Estate Planning for New Families.” eBooks are designed to educate, often for a broader audience, and are good for building awareness and credibility. Whitepapers: Structured and research-driven, whitepapers analyze a legal issue in depth. They often provide statistics, data, and citations and are geared toward a more sophisticated audience. Whitepapers are good lead magnets for firms that want to demonstrate thought leadership, especially in technical or regulatory practice areas. Downloadable Guides: Downloadable guides are similar to eBooks but tend to be shorter and narrower in scope. They are often built around a specific problem or decision, e.g., “What to Do After a Loved One’s Death.” While an eBook generally says, “Here’s what you need to know,” a downloadable guide says, “Here’s what you need to do right now.” Downloadable Checklists: There’s a certain satisfaction in checking items off a list, especially for people facing an unfamiliar legal problem who want to know they’re on the right track. Checklists like “Documents to Bring to Your First Estate Planning Appointment” or “Seven Things to Do Before You File for Divorce” help users feel organized and in control. Exclusive Webinars: Whether live and interactive or pre-recorded, webinars are a popular and effective lead magnet. Many people appreciate learning by video, and actually seeing and hearing the attorney humanizes them and helps build trust. People also tend not to attend webinars unless the issue is timely for them, so webinar attendees may be higher-intent leads. Case Studies: A case study is an account of a real matter (often with identifying details changed) that describes a legal issue the client faced, the strategic decisions the firm made, any obstacles encountered, and how they were addressed, and the outcome. Case studies signal experience with certain scenarios and reassure prospects that the firm has successfully handled cases like theirs. Templates: When used properly, downloadable templates can be highly effective lead magnets. They work best when they help leads organize information and identify areas of concern, such as an “Incident and Timeline Organizer.” Templates are best as lead magnets when they help prospects identify knowledge gaps and the need for an attorney’s help to move forward. The right lead magnets for your law firm depend on your goals, practice areas, and target audiences. It’s likely you will want multiple magnets in play for clients with different needs or people at different stages of the sales funnel. Paige Silver-Dunn, Director of Marketing for The Modern Firm, counsels attorneys to put themselves in their clients’ shoes when planning lead magnets: which topics and formats would they likely take the trouble to download? Getting the Most Out of Your Lead Magnets Unlock the full potential of your lead magnets by observing these best practices: Pay attention to both form and substance. Naturally, your lead magnets should provide genuinely helpful information; otherwise, the people who downloaded them won’t see the value in contacting you for more. But don’t underestimate the value of having an attractive, well-designed document or infographic bearing your law firm’s logo and branding. A polished appearance makes the lead magnet feel more valuable and makes your firm look more legitimate and trustworthy. Make access easy. How many times have you gone to take an action online, only to give up because you were asked to take one too many steps or provide more information than you were comfortable sharing? It’s the same for your prospective clients, so don’t make it inconvenient for them. Ask only for the minimum information you need, and make it convenient for them to provide their information. Nurture the leads you’ve gathered. The purpose of a lead magnet is to attract high-quality leads; don’t just let those leads languish! Keep in touch through appropriate lead nurturing. Lead nurturing keeps your firm top-of-mind for prospects early in the sales funnel, and continues to build trust and showcase your knowledge for those who are closer to hiring a law firm. Segment your contact lists. Your lead magnets may attract different pools of potential clients. An estate law firm, for example, might get contact information from young families making their first estate plan, older couples who need to update a plan, and people facing probate. Segment contact lists so targeted messages reach the right people. Not only would an email about “securing your baby’s future” be irrelevant to an elderly widow, but it also comes across as insensitive, signaling a lack of understanding of her situation and needs. Switch up your lead magnets. Lead magnets, like many aspects of law firm marketing, aren’t “set it and forget it.” It’s important to refresh your lead magnets from time to time, because stale or repeated content loses impact. Updating your materials ensures that your offers stay relevant to your target audience and ultimately attract prospects who are better matched and more committed to following through with services. Key Takeaways Lead magnets motivate prospects to share contact information in exchange for value A lead magnet is not a sales pitch; it’s a useful resource to attract potential new leads There are a variety of options for lead magnets, from downloadable checklists to eBooks to webinars Once you’ve acquired leads from this marketing avenue, be sure to nurture them

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT Arbitration Fuentes v. Empire Nissan (2026) _ Cal.5th _ , 2026 WL 265574: The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, which had reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in an employment case. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the employment arbitration agreement was unconscionable based on a very high degree of procedural unconscionability (including the agreement’s tiny, blurry print and rushed presentation) and a low-to-moderate degree of substantive unconscionability (including a perceived one-sided carveout tied to later confidentiality agreements). The Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to grant the motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that illegibility goes only to procedural unconscionability and that, properly construed, the confidentiality agreements did not create substantive one-sidedness. The Supreme Court held that format/legibility generally does not itself establish substantive unconscionability, but concluded the Court of Appeal erred by using a pro-arbitration interpretive presumption and by directing an order compelling arbitration rather than remanding. The California Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further trial-court proceedings (including consideration of unresolved validity/assent and related issues) consistent with the clarified unconscionability framework. (February 2, 2026.) CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL Attorney Fees Chong v. Mardirossian Akaragian LLP (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 63123: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant law firm’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that although the firm lacked the client’s consent to settle when the settlement was entered, the client later ratified the settlement and that ratification related back, entitling the firm to its full contingency fee (with prejudgment interest). Defendant was awarded $2,761,380.29 in attorney fees plus $522,770.90 in prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding there were no triable issues of material fact that the client’s ratification was involuntary (including no sufficient showing of duress or loss-minimization), and also upheld the denial of a motion continuance and the award of prejudgment interest. (C.A. 2nd, January 8, 2026.) Employment Spilman v. The Salvation Army (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 35953: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action alleging wage and hour issues. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, holding California’s wage-and-hour laws did not apply because plaintiffs, who performed full-time “work therapy” while enrolled in defendant’s six-month residential substance-abuse rehabilitation program, were volunteers rather than employees due to the absence of any express or implied agreement for compensation. The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed, holding that while nonprofit volunteers can fall outside the wage laws, the trial court had applied the wrong standard. When the question is whether a nonprofit organization has properly classified a worker as an unpaid volunteer rather than an employee, the nonprofit must establish that (1) the worker freely agreed to work for the nonprofit to obtain a personal or charitable benefit, rather than for compensation, and (2) overall, the nonprofit organization’s use of the volunteer labor is not a subterfuge to evade the wage laws. (C.A. 1st, January 6, 2026.) Torts Fisher v. Fisher (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 538717: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff Todd Fisher, following a jury trial, in a wrongful death action related to the death of his brother Wade Fisher. Plaintiff and his brother Wade had been engaged in a feud with their brothers Brittin and Kent Fisher over the division of their parents’ estate. Plaintiff alleged that Brittin and Kent Fisher falsely reported their mother was missing, even though they knew she had died of natural causes, with the intent to cast suspicion on Todd and Wade, and this act was very upsetting to Wade Fisher who had been sober for 15 years. After this event Wade relapsed and drove his motorcycle drunk with marijuana in his system without a helmet and he crashed and died. The jury found Brittin and Kent liable for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and they conspired to make false statements to SDPD requiring law enforcement intervention, and acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. The jury found defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing severe emotional distress and harm to Wade. They awarded about $5.1 million to Wade’s estate and $4.3 million to Todd, including $80,000 in punitive damages against each defendant. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress could be a legal cause of Wade Fisher’s relapse and subsequent death, and it rejected defendants’ other appellate challenges (including claims regarding curtailed cross-examination and damages). (C.A. 4th, February 26, 2026.) Trial Jogani v. Jogani (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 508478: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part (conditionally affirmed and modified in part, and dismissed in part) the trial court’s judgment, following a five-month jury trial, in favor of brothers Shashi Jogani, Rajesh Jogani, and Chetan Jogani related to their claims of ownership in the family’s diamond and real estate partnerships, awarding declaratory relief and compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and related relief totaling about $6.85 billion against Haresh Jogani and related entities. The Court of Appeal ruled that defendants failed to show reversible error on most issues raised on appeal. However, it concluded the trial court abused its discretion in admitting an undisclosed damages-expert opinion regarding approximately $1.98 billion in alleged lost profits, so it conditionally affirmed the judgment and ordered through remittitur a reduction of economic damages relating to the real estate partnership for the purported $1.98 billion in lost investment profit. If any of the prevailing parties do not agree to the reduction, then the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial as to that individual’s economic damages arising out of the real estate partnership and his punitive damages. The Court of Appeal otherwise affirmed the judgment. (C.A. 2nd, February 24, 2026.)

Last year saw the return of special and signing bonuses in the US legal market, signaling sustained competition for elite legal talent. Rather than indicating a broad-based hiring surge, this trend is in fact indicative of a laser-guided recruitment strategy in which firms are willing to pay significant premiums for attorneys with very specific expertise. While there are many corporate lawyers working in major cities, the proportion with this very defined skillset is small, so they can effectively name their price. Based on what we have observed in recent months and the hiring activity of the top firms, I certainly believe this trend is one which will continue for the foreseeable future. What seems to have happened is that those firms were all looking for the best people at the same time, so inevitably that creates considerable competition. This means that those associates were in a very good position to obtain big signing bonuses. The years following the pandemic were two of the best ever in the legal recruitment industry. This could be very obviously explained by so much activity being shut down during Covid and then rebounding with such an unprecedented surge. For reasons that are harder to pin down, there is almost a similar level of confidence in the marketplace now, which started toward the end of last year and still prevails. The offers we are seeing are almost reaching the level of the post-Covid flurry, when it was almost impossible to fulfill the demand. While M&A was not as busy last year because of geopolitical issues like the tariffs implemented by President Trump and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, that seems to have smoothed over. Interest rates appear to be coming down, and we are in a period of high investment. There are multiple explanations. But regardless of the exact reasoning, as a result of that improvement in confidence, deals are happening again, so there is going to be real demand in both leveraged finance, M&A and funds. Looking ahead, the market for the best attorneys at the top 20 firms in New York is likely to remain incredibly competitive in these high-demand practice areas. Recent market activity has seen multiple offers exceeding $100,000, highlighting how competition for experienced attorneys is approaching the levels last seen in 2021 and 2022. Firms are hiring more senior people than before, and the shrinking pool of suitably experienced senior associates and counsel is intensifying pressure on firms to secure talent earlier and at higher cost. I think it is perfectly possible that this sign-on bonus figure could rise still higher for certain people. Although $100,000 is a high number and not that common, we have seen a few rare instances in which bonus offers have exceeded $125,000. It is hard to envisage signing bonuses increasing beyond that, but we generally see more offers having sign on bonuses then not. Despite the apparent reluctance among firms to create an escalating bidding war, clearly the level of experience of the candidate might give them even more sway when negotiating a signing bonus with a firm desperate for a very tailored acquisition. Senior associates, counsel, and non-equity partners (NEP) are also in higher demand right now. The effect of this is that lateral moves and step-ups have been made more accessible for the right candidates, particularly where firms are prepared to be flexible on role and title. Beforehand, firms were less inclined to take people on at senior level, or even senior associate level. They would typically be looking for a two to six-year associate. Traditionally, the reason for this is that anyone above that six-year threshold would be getting closer to partnership level, which evidently brings its own risks. They wanted people at the mid-level because they are not too expensive; they are also at a stage in their career in which they can be molded and trained according to a firm’s particular demands and structure. Today, however, given the intensity of the competition between these top firms, there is more willingness to take on people already in senior positions. It comes down to the simple necessity of having to deal with the workload and having the ability to further grow their practices. Firms are much more flexible about paying massive incentives simply to get these prized assets through the door. Candidates have considerably more leverage than they would have done if they were just desperate to move. When it is a case of an attorney being willing to jump at anything, the firm holds all of the cards. But in a marketplace as busy and tight as this one, the candidate or the associate tends—in many cases—to be able to assert much more bargaining power. So, they’re able to be a bit more aggressive with their negotiations and more straightforward. Plainly this can give them the platform for obtaining much better offers. At the same time as changes in the hiring environment, we have also been observing structural changes to partnership tracks at different firms. This too is playing a significant part. Different firms are putting different structures in place to create alternative progression pathways. Based on this evolving template, candidates can increasingly weigh the relative value of early partnership titles versus more substantive routes toward equity elsewhere. For example, Kirkland and Ellis promotes attorneys to partner at the seventh-year level, but for some candidates this milestone carries less weight, as it is widely viewed as an expected progression within the firm. As a result, some attorneys choose instead to move to another firm as a non-equity partner, where the role may represent a more substantive and credible step towards equity. Historically, prior to this uptick in activity of the last two to three years, there was only a limited selection of promotional pathways for associates. For example, at a firm like Kirkland, from associate to non-equity partner to equity partner. Alternatively, you could stay as an associate for eight years and then try to make partner or become a counsel and then a partner. These were the only real routes. Now, however, so many different firms have so many different pathways. Some firms are now promoting attorneys to counsel at seven years, to non-equity at nine years, and then equity at 11 years. Others are just going for straight equity partner after seven years. The natural implication of this is that if an associate doesn’t like the structure that they’re on at their current firm, there is a much broader variety out there to pick and choose from. If they are unhappy in their role, this wealth of options provides them with infinitely more choice. It is no longer a case of complaining but sucking it up because you are entrapped by an inflexible promotion structure. This broad hiring phenomenon looks set to proceed at the same rate in the first half of this year. Firms are still being very aggressive, and there are no immediate signs of that stopping. When you have surges in the core markets of finance and M&A in particular, other areas such as tax also start to become busy because they are effectively a side-product of the substantive corporate work. There is, therefore, a high chance that these secondary areas might increase their level of activity, further bolstering the need for firms to make the right hires at associate level. I cannot envisage any immediate slowdown. 

When a Nevada County prosecutor cited three completely fabricated cases in court—and then blamed “scrivener’s errors”—the California Supreme Court had seen enough. The unanimous decision in Kjoller v. Superior Court of Nevada County marks a turning point in how California courts will handle AI-generated hallucinations in legal filings. Combined with the recent passage of SB 574 by the California Senate, the message to practitioners is unmistakable: the era of plausible deniability for AI mistakes is over. The Case That Changed Everything The facts in Kjoller read like a cautionary tale written specifically for the AI age. A Nevada County District Attorney submitted a response brief citing eight cases. Three didn’t exist at all. Three more existed but said nothing resembling what the DA claimed. Even a cited constitutional provision was irrelevant to the point being argued. When opposing counsel discovered the fabrications and filed for sanctions, the DA’s response made matters worse. First came a phone call claiming she was just “going too fast in her research.” Then came a brief characterizing wholesale fabrication as “scrivener’s errors”—the legal equivalent of claiming the dog ate your homework. The Court of Appeal twice denied sanctions motions without explanation. But the California Supreme Court wasn’t buying it. In a unanimous order, the Court directed the Court of Appeal to issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. More significantly, the Court gestured to the civil referee process governed by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 638-640 as a mechanism for the trial court to investigate and resolve the matter—essentially green-lighting a formal inquiry into whether the DA had relied on AI hallucinations. The Cover-Up Makes It Worse The Supreme Court’s decision to recommend a referee appointment signals something crucial: how attorneys respond after discovering AI errors matters as much as the errors themselves. The Court was clearly influenced by: United States v. Hayes, where the Eastern District of California sanctioned an attorney who also blamed “hasty” drafting for AI hallucinations. That court didn’t just impose monetary penalties—it ordered the sanctions notice be sent to every state bar where the attorney was licensed and to every judge in the district. A permanent, public record of professional failure. Kjoller follows the same trajectory. By denying responsibility and offering implausible explanations, the DA transformed a correctable mistake into an ethics investigation that could result in career-altering consequences. The lesson is stark: attorneys who immediately acknowledge AI errors and take corrective action face manageable consequences. However, those who deflect, deny, or minimize face investigations, public embarrassment, and escalating sanctions. The Myth of “Reliable” Legal AI Tools Many practitioners assume that premium legal research platforms are immune to AI hallucinations. The data tells a different story. Research presented in the Kjoller petition reveals that AI tools from LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters—the gold standard names in legal research—hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. These aren’t experimental startups; these are established platforms with decades of credibility. Yet one in five citations generated by their AI tools may be fabricated. For context, general-purpose models like ChatGPT hallucinate legal queries between 58% and 88% of the time. The specialized tools are better, but not reliable enough to justify blind trust. A fabricated case is misconduct regardless of which platform generated it. The glossy marketing materials and brand recognition of premium vendors don’t change that fundamental reality. As the Kjoller petition states plainly: “using AI to generate briefing without carefully cite checking the drafts often will result in the citation of fabricated authorities, which is misconduct.” Law firms cannot outsource verification responsibility to technology vendors. If anything, AI-generated research demands more scrutiny than traditional methods, not less. Every citation must be independently verified, every case read in full, every proposition confirmed against the actual source material. This Isn’t Just About Criminal Law Kjoller involves criminal defense, where AI hallucinations can have “horrific, life-shattering consequences” for defendants facing incarceration. The stakes in criminal cases naturally heighten judicial concern. But the California Supreme Court’s reasoning applies with equal force to civil practice. The Court’s message transcends practice areas: submitting unverified AI outputs to any court invites significant sanctions, including formal investigations into your competence and ethics. The fundamental obligations haven’t changed. Attorneys must present truthful information to courts. They must conduct adequate research. They must verify their sources. AI hasn’t automated these responsibilities away—if anything, it’s placed them under a microscope. The Legislature Moves to Codify Verification Requirements Two weeks after Kjoller, the California Senate passed SB 574, which would require attorneys to take “reasonable steps” to verify all AI-generated materials, correct hallucinations, and remove biased content. The bill also prohibits inputting confidential client information into AI tools and bars arbitrators from delegating decisions to AI. SB 574 was modeled after existing judicial AI rules and a recent sanctions case—but the timing and substance align perfectly with Kjoller’s themes. The trend is unmistakable: courts are sanctioning lawyers for unverified AI output, and legislatures are moving to make verification protocols mandatory. Whether SB 574 becomes law or not, the writing is on the wall. Practitioners who wait for formal legislative mandates are already behind. The standard of care is being established now, case by case, sanction by sanction. What Practitioners Must Do Now The implications of Kjoller and the legislative momentum behind SB 574 demand immediate action: Implement mandatory verification protocols. Every AI-generated citation must be independently verified. Every case must be read in full. Every legal proposition must be confirmed against original sources. Make verification a required step in your quality control process, not an optional safeguard. Apply equal scrutiny to all AI tools. Don’t assume premium platforms are hallucination-proof. Whether research comes from ChatGPT or LexisNexis AI, the verification requirements are identical. Train your team. Ensure everyone using AI tools understands both the technology’s limitations and the professional consequences of submitting fabricated authority. Make it clear that “I didn’t know” isn’t a defense. Own your mistakes immediately. If you discover AI hallucinations in filed documents, acknowledge the error promptly and file corrections. The cover-up is worse than the crime. Protect client confidentiality. Never input confidential information into AI tools unless you have explicit protocols ensuring compliance with ethical obligations. The California Supreme Court and Senate have made their positions clear. AI is a tool, not a substitute for professional judgment. Attorneys who treat it as such will benefit from its capabilities. Those who use it as a shortcut will face consequences that could define their careers—for all the wrong reasons. 

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Arbitration LaCour v. Marshalls of California (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3731034: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a former employee plaintiff’s single-count PAGA action. In denying the motion, the trial court reasoned that “there is no such thing as an ‘individual PAGA claim’ ” that could be severed and compelled to arbitration. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that—based on ordinary contract-interpretation principles and the parties’ mutual intent when the arbitration agreement was signed in 2014—the arbitration agreement did not clearly reflect an agreement to arbitrate “individual PAGA claims,” so defendant was not entitled to compel arbitration notwithstanding Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 and related post-Viking River developments. (C.A. 1st, Dec. 24, 2025.) Attorney Fees Evleshin v. Meyer (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3101271: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying defendants’ postjudgment motion for attorney fees. Following a bench trial the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants, the sellers of a Santa Cruz home, and found them to be the prevailing parties in a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs/buyers alleging breach of contract and fraud. In the purchase agreement the parties agreed to mediate if there was a dispute. If one party refused to mediate they would lose the right to recover attorney fees if they later prevailed. Based upon these provisions, the trial court denied defendants’ motion for attorney fees on the grounds that defendants had refused to mediate, and although they were the prevailing they had lost the ability to recover attorney fees. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the trial court erred in reading the contract’s mediation clause to impose a forfeiture where there was evidence in the record that could support a conclusion that while defendants’ initially declined to mediate, they re-opened the door to mediation before the lawsuit was filed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. If the trial court finds on remand that defendants retracted their initial refusal to mediate and expressed a willingness to mediate before the lawsuit was filed, the disentitlement provision in the contract would not apply. (C.A. 6th, November 6, 2025.) Johnson v. Rubylin, Inc. (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3687544: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision sanctioning plaintiff for failing to comply with Civil Code section 55.54(d)(7) by refusing to disclose in his early-evaluation-conference statement the amount of attorney fees and costs he was claiming as of that time, and—after offering an alternative sanction of proceeding but not being able to recover attorney fees—dismissed the action with prejudice when plaintiff elected dismissal. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that section 55.54(d)(7)’s requirement to disclose claimed attorney fees and costs did not violate the attorney-client privilege (distinguishing the decision in Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282). It also concluded the trial court’s sanctions procedure did not violate due process. (C.A. 6th, December 19, 2025.) Employment Dobarro v. Kim (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3228546: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision denying defendant’s appeal of a Labor Commissioner wage award to plaintiff because it was filed one day late. The trial court concluded the notice of appeal was untimely filed under Labor Code section 98.2. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the Labor Code section 98.2 deadlines for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision and for posting or seeking waiver of the undertaking are mandatory and jurisdictional, not subject to equitable tolling or the electronic-filing tolling provision in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, rejected defendant’s other arguments as meritless, declined to impose sanctions but published the opinion to clarify the law. (C.A. 1st, November 19, 2025.) Torts Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3225067: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s finding for defendant, in a bench trial on the liability of defendant under the immunity provided in Vehicle Code section 17004.7, in plaintiff’s action for personal injuries suffered when her car was hit by another driver who was being followed by a city police officer. The trial court concluded that defendant’s written vehicular pursuit policy and training complied with the statute and the other driver Elijah Henry believed he was being pursued, thereby rendering defendant immune from liability for plaintiff’s injuries and entering judgment in defendant’s favor. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that held the term “pursued” in section 17004.7(b)(1) must be given a single meaning derived from the vehicular pursuit definition in the public entity’s policy (including the requirement that the suspect be attempting to avoid arrest), and the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in assessing Henry’s belief and improperly disregarded evidence that he did not think he was being pursued under that policy. The case was reversed and remanded for reconsideration of defendant’s the immunity claim under the correct standard. (C.A. 1st, November 19, 2025.) Trial McDonald v. Zargaryan (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2025 WL 3704598: The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for plaintiff, following a jury trial, where the jury awarded plaintiff future medical expenses of $1,872,900, past pain and suffering of $2 million, and for future pain and suffering was $10 million. The issue in this case was the fact that plaintiff first went to see a surgeon, Dr. Toorag Gravori, the week before trial and 16 months after the exchange of expert information. Seven days before trial, counsel for plaintiff blindsided the defense with a new medical expert with a new medical theory. The trial court denied defendants’ motion in limine to exclude plaintiff’s late-disclosed medical expert, permitted the expert to testify after an expedited deposition, and the jury returned the substantial verdict above for plaintiff that the court reduced to judgment. The Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the surprise expert to testify despite plaintiff’s failure to timely disclose the expert or seek leave to augment the expert list and the absence of any reasonable justification for the eve-of-trial designation. The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial. (C.A. 2nd, December 22, 2025.)

Having participated in mediations as an advocate and as a mediator, I can say that the mediation process lends itself well to the resolution of all kinds of personal injury claims. From motor vehicle and premises liability cases to medical malpractice, products liability and labor law matters, a good mediator will give the parties the opportunity to manage risks and avoid the uncertainty of having the fates of the litigants decided by six people you have never met before. A mediation will often be the last best opportunity for the parties to discuss a resolution in earnest before they get into a courtroom and start trying the case. Of course, cases can settle during trial, but those settlement figures are often skewed by the courtroom events. If an important witness is obliterated on cross-examination (or does not even show up), the settlement numbers will go up or down accordingly. A mediation gives you the chance to discuss the case “as is,” without the unpredictability of a trial. Mediations are similar to trials in the sense that they work so much better when everyone is fully prepared. So, if you agree to mediate a case, take that opportunity seriously. A cursory review of your file the night before the mediation generally will not suffice. Indeed, when I look back at the cases that have not settled at mediation, the number one reason was that one or more of the parties did not properly prepare. What follows is a checklist of sorts, that will hopefully help attorneys and litigants on both sides get better results from the mediation process. Here are the ten things that you will need to get the case resolved: Bring your clients. This may seem painfully obvious, yet I hear so many attorneys say, “The claims examiner is on phone call alert” or “My client is waiting to hear from me.” As a general rule, the more involved the clients are in the mediation, the greater your chances of success are. Now, when I say that you should “bring” your clients to the mediation, I am using that word in a broad sense. For better or worse, the overwhelming majority of personal injury mediations are now done virtually. The plaintiff himself or herself does not necessarily need to be in front of a camera, listening to every word that is said. But having the plaintiff physically present in the attorney’s office shows a level of commitment to the process. It also makes the conversations about offers and demands much easier and helps to move the mediation forward. On the defendants’ side, having the claims professional on the Zoom call helps tremendously. The mediation process becomes disjointed and often loses steam when all developments have to be discussed in private phone calls between defense counsel and the insurance company representative. Listen. Nobody in the history of the world ever learned a thing just by talking. The single most important thing that the participants can do during the mediation itself is listen – not just to the mediator, but to all of the other participants. You need to listen to the other side explain precisely what the evidentiary basis is for their current demand or offer. Yes, there will surely be some posturing by the attorneys. A big part of the mediator’s job is to get the parties past the bravado and unhelpful rhetoric and move them toward a more reasonable and realistic place. Have pre-mediation discussions. I am always amazed when the parties tell me that they have not had any settlement discussions at all before the mediation session. Pick up the phone, people! As a general rule, the plaintiff should make a settlement demand well in advance of the mediation, as this allows the other side sufficient time to evaluate the settlement possibilities. Have pre-mediation discussions with your co-defendants. The proper evaluation of a personal injury case from a defendant’s perspective must include an opinion on the percentages of contribution needed from each defendant and third-party defendant. Yet we often see co-defendants taking diametrically opposed positions on percentages that have never been discussed before the mediation. If your evaluation relies on your co-defendant for a significant contribution towards the overall settlement, pick up the phone and discuss the case with the attorney and/or the claims professional in advance of the mediation. Alternatively, you can consider a defense-only mediation session, where contribution, indemnity, and coverage issues can be resolved, so that the focus can be solely on the value of the case when it is discussed at the next session with plaintiff’s counsel. Prepare BRIEF submissions. Take the time to prepare submissions for your mediator. They do not have to be voluminous; in fact, they should be quite succinct. Do not send your summary judgment motion with complete copies of all 47 exhibits. Brief statements on key liability and damages issues, with references to the specific supporting evidence, are most helpful. Please include the history of all prior settlement discussions, as well as insurance coverage information for the defendants. Meet with your clients. This is crucial, whether you are representing the plaintiff or a defendant. Decisions need to be made, in advance of the mediation, on where the settlement discussions will begin and end. (Of course, the end point may change at the mediation. See item 10.) Regardless of which side you are on, make sure that you have these conversations with the actual decision makers. A spouse or relative may have significant influence on the plaintiff’s decisions. If so, get them involved early on with the discussions. If the settlement money required on a case is above the authority limits of the claims professional to whom you have been reporting, have communications in advance with the supervisors who possess the requisite authority, as it may prove difficult to get their input during the mediation, especially if they have not reviewed the case previously. Don’t try your case at a mediation. The trial of a personal injury case is an exceptionally adversarial proceeding. Everybody wants to win and the trial attorneys will go to great lengths (within the bounds of fair play, of course) to get that victory. A mediation, on the other hand, is a more collaborative event. While the attorneys will surely advocate for their clients at a mediation, the result that they seek is a settlement to which everyone must agree. So, it is best to leave the “scorched earth” tactics and the “winner-take-all” trial mindset at your office when mediating a case. However… Bring your admissible evidence. While we are not trying the case at a mediation, we are evaluating the case based on the potentially admissible evidence. This is sometimes referred to as the “lens of admissibility.” Be prepared to highlight the admissible evidence that supports your position. Whether it is a photograph of a clearly defective condition, a series of questions and answers in a deposition transcript, or an emergency room record, the evidence itself should be brought to the attention of not just the mediator, but everyone in attendance. Always remember that it is the other side that you are trying to convince as to the value of the case, not just the mediator. Watch your language. Once the parties agree to a mediation, they all have the common goal of a settled case. All attendees at a mediation are well advised to ask themselves: Is what I am about to say going to be helpful in getting this case resolved? For example, we often hear settlement demands described as “outrageous.” According to Roget’s Thesaurus, synonyms for “outrageous” include: barbaric, disgraceful, heinous, inhuman, scandalous, and wanton. Is that the word you really want to use? Keep an open mind. The trial judge gives this admonition to the jury throughout the trial, so that jurors do not make up their mind too soon, thereby ignoring potentially game-changing evidence. Mediation participants must be prepared to adjust their positions, so that a settlement can be reached. It may seem counterintuitive to spend so much time and effort on evaluating the case before the mediation, only to revise your numbers during the mediation. But the evaluation of personal injury claims is enormously subjective, and reasonable minds will differ. So, the question is not just what YOU think the case is worth; it is also what range of numbers will achieve the desired goal of getting the case resolved. So that’s my list. If you think that I left something out, I would love to hear from you. I can’t promise you that your mediations will all be successful if you follow these ten steps. But I can pretty much guarantee that if you don’t do any of them, your case is going to trial. 

Your Bonus Check Is Your Escape Hatch December is here. Bonuses hit bank accounts. And thousands of lawyers are doing the same math they do every year: Is this enough to keep me here? Here is the truth most BigLaw partners will never tell you: The barriers to starting your own law firm have never been lower. The economics have never been better. And the myths keeping you chained to your desk are exactly that. Myths. The Fear Factory The legal profession runs on fear. Fear of failure. Fear of losing prestige. Fear of the unknown. Law firm leadership depends on this fear to maintain the status quo. You have been told that clients expect a corner office in a downtown high-rise. You have been told that going solo means taking a pay cut. None of this is true anymore. The partners who tell you these things are not lying. They are repeating what they believed when they started practicing. But technology has fundamentally changed the economics of running a law firm. Most lawyers over 50 have not updated their mental models. Your clients have changed too. They work from home. They take Zoom calls in their kitchens. They do not care if you have a mahogany conference table. They care if you answer your phone and solve their problems. The Real Numbers Let me show you what a lean law practice actually costs in 2025. Google Workspace Business Standard plan: $14 per month. This gives you professional email, cloud storage, video conferencing, and document collaboration. Gemini 3 is probably all of the AI software you need and it’s included in Workspace. Throw in $10 a month for a Google Voice number, and it’s everything you need to run a modern practice. Web domain and basic hosting: $500 per year. You need a professional website. You do not need to spend $10,000 on a marketing agency to build it. Hardware: $3,000 for a new MacBook Air, printer, and scanner. This is a one-time expense that will last you years. Malpractice insurance: $1,500 for your first year. This is the cheapest it will ever be because you have no claims history and limited exposure. That is $5,072 in core expenses. Add your phone bill at $1,200 per year. Budget $7,500 for accounting and bookkeeping. Throw in $1,500 for incidental software like Adobe. Get Fastcase for legal research at $995. You are now at $16,267 in annual expenses. You have nearly $9,000 left in a $25,000 budget for things like co-working space, marketing, additional monitors, or case management software. Some lawyers are running profitable practices for under $20,000 per year in total expenses. Compare this to what your firm bills clients for your time minus what they actually pay you. The math is not complicated. The Myth of the Pay Cut Here is the most persistent lie in legal practice: Going solo means making less money. The opposite is often true. When you work at a firm, you generate revenue and keep a fraction of it. The rest goes to partners who did not do the work, overhead you do not need, and profit margins that benefit everyone except you. When you run your own practice, every dollar of revenue above your expenses is yours. A solo practitioner billing $300 per hour who works 1,500 billable hours generates $450,000 in revenue. Subtract $25,000 in expenses. That leaves $425,000 before taxes. How many BigLaw associates make $425,000? How many have the flexibility to take a Tuesday afternoon off to watch their kid’s school play? The economics favor the entrepreneur. They always have. The legal profession just convinced you otherwise. The Office Myth Your clients do not want to come to your office. The pandemic proved what technology already enabled: Legal work can happen anywhere. Clients prefer the convenience of video calls. A physical office is a fixed cost that drains your cash flow every month whether you have clients or not. It limits your flexibility. It is a relic of a business model designed for a different era. If you need to meet a client in person, rent a conference room for an hour. It costs a fraction of monthly office rent and signals that you are efficient with resources. What You Actually Need Starting a successful law firm requires three things: vision, values, and community. Vision means knowing what kind of practice you want to build. Not every lawyer should go solo. But if you are reading this article in January while looking at your bonus check, you probably already know what you want. You just need permission to pursue it. Values mean understanding what matters to you beyond money. Do you want flexibility? Autonomy? The ability to choose your clients? Control over your own schedule? Community means surrounding yourself with people who have done what you want to do. The loneliest path is the one you walk alone. Find mentors who have built successful practices. Learn from their mistakes. The Best Investment You Will Make If you are serious about starting a firm, do the foundational work first. Define your vision. Clarify your values. Build a business plan that reflects who you are, not what someone else thinks a law firm should look like. You can run a law firm for $25,000 a year. You can make more money than you do now. You can have the flexibility and autonomy you crave. The barriers are not financial. They are psychological. The question is not whether you can afford to start your own firm. The question is whether you can afford to keep waiting. Your bonus check is sitting in your account. What are you going to do with it? 

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. 

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.