Industry Insight
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.
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.)
Mark Cuban doesn’t mince words. When I asked him for advice for my law students at UConn Law School, his response was brutally simple: “Become intimate with all the LLMs. Learn what they can and can’t do. Same with agentic AI.” He’s right. And most lawyers are completely unprepared for what’s coming. The legal profession spent the last century perfecting human processes. We created elaborate systems for document review, legal research, contract drafting, and case management. We built pyramids of associates doing manual work that partners would review. We charged by the hour for tasks that should take minutes. Now Cuban points to the obvious truth: all those processes are dead weight. The firms that survive will be the ones that eliminate them entirely through automation. The Process Problem Is Killing Legal Practice Law firms are process factories. Junior associates spend 2,000 hours a year on document review. Partners waste days editing briefs that could be generated in seconds. Paralegals manage filing systems that should be automated. Clients pay $500 an hour for work that adds no real value. Cuban nails it: “So much of law is spent on processes.” These processes exist because we’ve always done them, not because they need to exist. They’re the legal equivalent of using horses when cars are available. Every hour spent on process is an hour stolen from actual legal thinking and strategy. The dirty secret is that most legal work isn’t legal work at all. It’s information processing, pattern matching, and document generation. These are exactly the tasks that LLMs excel at. A properly configured AI can review contracts faster than any human, spot issues more consistently, and generate first drafts that need minimal editing. Yet most firms still have associates doing this work manually, billing clients’ premium rates for commodity tasks. This isn’t just inefficient. It’s malpractice. When better tools exist and lawyers refuse to use them, they’re failing their duty to serve clients effectively. The profession’s resistance to automation isn’t principled; it’s protectionist. We’re protecting outdated business models at the expense of access to justice. Law Firms Are Having the Wrong Debate Here’s what kills me: Right now, law firm management committees are sitting in conference rooms debating whether to allow ChatGPT or which legal AI vendor to select. They’re comparing Cocounsel to Harvey to Lexis+ AI. They’re drafting policies about acceptable use. They’re forming committees to study the issue. They’re completely missing the plot. This isn’t a procurement decision. It’s not about picking the right product or crafting the perfect policy. It’s about fundamentally rewiring how lawyers think and work. While firms debate which walled garden to buy into, their competitors are teaching lawyers to be AI-native practitioners who can work with any tool that emerges. The vendors selling “legal-specific AI” are laughing all the way to the bank. They’re charging firms tens of thousands per month for what amounts to GPT-5 with a legal wrapper. These firms think they’re buying safety and specialization. What they’re actually buying is limitation and dependency. Meanwhile, lawyers who know how to work directly with Claude or GPT-5 are running circles around them, switching between models based on the task, combining tools for complex workflows. The real competitive advantage isn’t having the “right” AI tool. It’s having lawyers who understand AI deeply enough to use any tool effectively. The New Core Competency: AI Fluency Cuban’s advice cuts through the noise: become intimate with LLMs. Not familiar. Not competent. Intimate. This means understanding their capabilities at a granular level. Knowing when Claude outperforms GPT-5 for legal analysis. Understanding how to chain prompts for complex reasoning. Recognizing when an AI hallucinates versus when it surfaces genuine insights. Most lawyers treat AI like a search engine. They ask basic questions, get basic answers, and declare the technology overhyped. They’re using Formula One race cars to drive to the grocery store. The lawyers who will dominate the next decade are those who understand these tools deeply enough to push them to their limits. This isn’t about learning to code. It’s about learning to think in ways machines can execute. It means breaking complex legal problems into discrete, solvable components. It means understanding how to validate AI output and when to trust automated systems. It means knowing which tasks to delegate to machines and which require human judgment. The skill hierarchy in law is inverting. Technical excellence used to mean mastering case law and procedure. Now it means orchestrating AI systems to handle routine work while you focus on strategy and client relationships. The lawyers who can make machines do their bidding will outcompete those who can’t by orders of magnitude. It’s About Learning, Not Buying The firms getting this right aren’t shopping for solutions. They’re building learning cultures. They’re running prompt engineering workshops. They’re creating internal labs where lawyers experiment with different models. They’re rewarding lawyers who find new ways to automate routine tasks. One partner I know gave her entire team Claude and ChatGPT accounts and told them to break things. No policies, no restrictions, just pure experimentation. Within a month, they’d automated 40% of their document review process. Within three months, they were generating first drafts of briefs that needed minimal editing. They didn’t buy a legal AI product. They learned how to think with machines. This is what Cuban means by becoming “intimate” with LLMs. It’s not about mastering a single tool. It’s about developing an intuition for how these systems think, what they can do, and how to push them beyond their obvious applications. It’s about learning the meta-skill of AI collaboration. The firms still debating policies are already obsolete. While they worry about risk and compliance, their clients are using ChatGPT themselves and wondering why they’re paying lawyers to do work that machines can handle. The market won’t wait for the legal profession to get comfortable with AI. It will simply route around firms that refuse to adapt. Building the Future Means Destroying the Present Cuban’s most provocative point is his call to “invent new approaches.” He’s not talking about incremental improvement. He’s talking about burning down existing models and building something fundamentally different. Consider legal research. The traditional approach involves hours in databases, reading cases, synthesizing holdings. The AI approach? Feed a well-crafted prompt to Claude or GPT-5, get a comprehensive analysis in seconds, then spend your time validating and refining. The entire research process collapses from days to hours. Or take contract drafting. Instead of starting from templates and manually customizing clauses, AI-fluent lawyers generate entire agreements from natural language specifications. They iterate through versions in real-time during negotiations. What took weeks now takes hours. These aren’t efficiency gains. They’re paradigm shifts. And they’re happening whether the legal establishment likes it or not. The firms clinging to traditional processes will be decimated by competitors who embrace automation. The choice isn’t whether to adopt AI but whether to lead or follow. The Path Forward Is Clear Cuban’s advice is a roadmap, but most firms are treating it like a shopping list. Stop looking for the perfect AI product. Start building AI-native lawyers. First, master the tools. Not a tool. The tools. Spend serious time with Claude, GPT-5, Gemini, and emerging platforms. Learn their strengths, weaknesses, and quirks. Understand how to prompt effectively, validate outputs, and chain operations for complex tasks. Make this part of professional development, not a side project. Second, create learning environments. Give lawyers time and space to experiment. Reward failure and breakthrough equally. Share discoveries across teams. Build internal knowledge bases of effective prompts and workflows. Make AI fluency as important as legal knowledge in performance reviews. Third, identify processes to eliminate. Every manual task in your practice is a target for automation. Document review, legal research, contract analysis, brief writing, client communications. Map these processes, then systematically replace them with AI workflows. Fourth, invent new service models. When routine work takes minutes instead of hours, billing structures must change. Value-based pricing, subscription models, and outcome-based fees will replace the billable hour. Firms that figure this out first will capture massive market share. The legal profession stands at an inflection point. Cuban sees it clearly: the future belongs to those who can command machines to do their bidding. The rest will be left behind, clinging to processes that no longer need to exist, charging for work that machines do better. The lawyers who get it: They’re not learning to be traditional lawyers. They’re learning to be legal engineers, process eliminators, and AI orchestrators. They’re not asking which legal AI product to use. They’re learning to use them all, to think with machines, to see possibilities where others see threats. They’re following Cuban’s advice to the letter. The question for practicing lawyers is simple: Will you join them, or will you be replaced by them? Cuban has shown you the path. Stop shopping for solutions and start learning. The only thing left is to walk it.
Gen Z lawyers—born between 1997 and 2012—are stepping into the profession with expectations that are rewriting the rules of law firm life. They want flexible schedules, meaningful mental health support, and technology that reduces busywork instead of creating it. They ask direct questions about lawyer work-life balance and often choose smaller firms with strong cultures over BigLaw positions. With the oldest Gen Z lawyers now in their late 20s, this generation comprises nearly 30% of the global population, and their influence on the legal industry is already reshaping traditional practices. For firms, this means culture, technology, and growth opportunities will increasingly determine who wins the talent war in the years ahead. In this post, we’ll explore what matters most to Gen Z lawyers, how they’re redefining career success, and what firms can do to stay competitive. Who Are Gen Z Lawyers? Gen Z attorneys are typically aged 25 to 28 as they enter the legal profession, representing the oldest members of a generation born between 1997 and 2012. As digital natives who grew up with smartphones, social media, and instant access to information, they think, learn, and work differently than previous generations. They expect genuine work-life balance, mental-health support, and modern legal technology that helps them work smarter. And they won’t hesitate to leave firms that don’t offer the right culture, flexibility, or growth opportunities. What Sets Gen Z Lawyers Apart? Understanding what drives Gen Z as lawyers requires looking beyond surface-level preferences to their core values and expectations. Here’s what firms need to understand about this generation. They expect technology to help them work smarter. Legal practice management systems and mobile apps that provide effortless access to case and client information from anywhere are now expectations for these digital natives. They reject endless email chains, don’t understand why paper-based documents still exist, and prefer streamlined communication, seeking legal workflow automation that eliminates manual processes. Purpose matters more than prestige. Traditional markers like BigLaw names and corner offices carry less weight than meaningful work. Deloitte’s latest Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that 89% consider a sense of purpose essential to job satisfaction and well-being. Many will even accept lower pay for work that aligns with their values and offers a stronger sense of long-term career fulfillment. Boundaries aren’t negotiable. These young lawyers set clear limits on their availability because they’ve witnessed the burnout that comes without them. They deliver high-quality work during business hours while protecting personal time so they can recharge and stay effective long-term. They need feedback to grow. Having grown up with instant feedback in every other area of life, they expect the same at work. They want regular check-ins, clear expectations, and immediate recognition for good work. This constant feedback loop accelerates their development and helps firms spot and fix issues early on. More than generational quirks, these are shifts in workplace expectations that affect law firms every day. Firms that embrace these expectations will attract and retain top talent, while those that ignore them risk losing the lawyers who will define the next decade of practice. Gen Z Expectations vs. Traditional Legal Norms The tension between old and new approaches creates daily friction for legal professionals. In many BigLaw firms, you’ll often witness a familiar scene: seasoned partners who believe associates need to “pay their dues” working alongside 26-year-olds who are adamant the system needs to change. It’s a clash between two completely different ways of thinking about legal work. Here’s where the expectations of Gen Z lawyers collide with traditional legal norms: Billable hours vs. quality of output. Gen Z lawyers grew up in a world where technology improves efficiency, so a compensation model that’s based purely on time spent feels backward to them. Meanwhile, many partners who built successful careers under the billable hour model consider it indispensable to law firm profitability. Hierarchy vs. collaboration. Traditional firms operate on strict chains of command where junior associates wait years before their opinions carry weight. Gen Z lawyers, by contrast, are accustomed to flat organizational structures and open communication. When they spot inefficiencies or have innovative ideas, they expect to be heard. Linear careers vs. flexible paths. The traditional model assumes everyone wants to make partner. But Gen Z lawyers often have more fluid career goals. Remarkably, only 6% say their primary career goal is reaching senior leadership. Some plan to go in-house after gaining experience. Others want to start their own practices or take sabbaticals for personal projects. Face time vs. results. Partners who came up in an era where being seen in the office equaled dedication now manage associates who can work effectively from anywhere. Gen Z lawyers judge performance based on output and results, not hours logged at a desk. These differences create natural tension, but they also raise important questions about how the legal profession operates. Firms that thoughtfully examine whether current practices serve everyone well—while preserving what works about traditional practice—will gain an edge in attracting and retaining exceptional talent. Law Firm Challenges In Attracting and Retaining Gen Z Firms face significant challenges in retaining emerging Gen Zs, and these problems stem from fundamental misunderstandings about what young lawyers actually need. With up to 50% of Gen Z workers reportedly disengaged from their jobs, law firms can’t afford to ignore these barriers. Treating Basics Like Perks One of the most significant disconnects occurs when firms continue to treat flexibility and work-life balance as optional perks instead of basic requirements. Gen Z lawyers expect the ability to work from home a few days a week, set their own schedules when possible, and manage personal commitments independently. When firms present these as “extra” benefits, it sends the message that they don’t truly understand how legal work can be done effectively today. Korn Ferry research even shows that 40% of Gen Z associates begin job searching within two years, often citing culture and flexibility concerns. Mentorship That Doesn’t Actually Mentor Gen Z wants real guidance and structured professional development, not just someone who assigns work and disappears. They expect mentors who understand what new lawyers need to succeed and help them get there. The traditional “figure it out yourself” approach leaves them feeling abandoned and undervalued. The numbers reveal this gap clearly. According to Deloitte, 50% of Gen Zs want managers who teach and mentor them, but only 36% say this actually happens. That disconnect between expectation and reality drives many talented young lawyers to look for opportunities elsewhere. Technology That Works Against Them Outdated systems frustrate young lawyers daily in ways that directly impact their ability to do good work. When they have to use three different platforms to complete one task, or when basic processes take hours instead of minutes, they start questioning whether the firm is serious about efficiency. Over time, these tech frustrations can chip away at engagement, productivity, and even loyalty. Career Paths That Assume Everyone Wants The Same Thing The traditional 8-10-year partnership track can feel constraining for lawyers who might want to pivot, take a sabbatical, or explore completely different goals. Gen Z expects firms to offer flexibility and support for diverse career paths, rather than funneling everyone into a one-size-fits-all trajectory. Recommendations: How Law Firms Can Adapt Smart firms are already making changes that reflect the preferences of Gen Z lawyers. By adopting the following six strategies, your firm can create a workplace that attracts, retains, and empowers talent at every level. Make flexibility the default. Gen Z lawyers value the ability to work where and when they can be most productive. Instead of treating remote work or flexible schedules as special privileges, make them standard practice. Focus on results and outcomes rather than hours logged or physical presence. Cloud-based practice management platforms make this possible, letting teams collaborate seamlessly whether they’re in the office, at home, or in court. Build mentorship programs that develop talent. Gen Z wants legal mentors who actively guide them, teach practical skills, and sponsor their growth. Provide mentors with dedicated time and opportunities for meaningful interaction. Beyond mentorship, Gen Z lawyers benefit from structured learning opportunities and ongoing legal education that keeps pace with their career growth. Modernize your tech stack. Outdated systems slow down work and create frustration. Invest in integrated technology that simplifies workflows instead of complicating them. The top legal software consolidates case management, time tracking, billing, and client communication into one centralized place. The result? Less time wrestling with systems and more time practicing law effectively—a win for associates and partners alike. Transform DEI from policy to practice. Gen Z can spot performative diversity a mile away. Inclusive policies alone aren’t enough. They need to be reflected in who’s hired, promoted, and placed in leadership. Show authentic commitment through measurable actions, like diverse leadership pipelines, fair promotion practices, and active accountability. When lawyers see real representation and inclusion in action, it builds trust, engagement, and a stronger sense of belonging. Measure what matters. Billable hours alone don’t capture what makes a lawyer successful. Reward lawyers who improve processes, take smarter approaches, or deliver exceptional results, not just those who work the longest hours. Modern legal technology makes this easy by supporting a wide range of alternative billing arrangements, like flat fees or subscription-based billing options. Give them meaningful work from day one. Young lawyers don’t want to spend years on endless document review or routine research. Instead, offer substantive projects, real client interaction, and genuine responsibility early on. With legal AI increasingly automating routine tasks traditionally assigned to junior staff, firms can now offer more substantive work to new associates from the beginning. Research and Surveys of Gen Z Voices Sometimes, the best way to understand a generation is to hear from them directly. Recent research and surveys reveal telling insights about what Gen Z lawyers want and what’s driving them away from traditional firms. 52% of Gen Z associates are willing to trade part of their salary for reduced billable hours, with women showing stronger preferences for this trade-off. 39% of Gen Z associates disagree or strongly disagree that associates at their firm were racially diverse. More than one in four junior associates disagreed or strongly disagreed that their firms prioritize pro bono work (27%) or value social justice and responsibility (27%). 68% of young lawyers experience stress and anxiety due to student loan debt, with 67% feeling financial stress overall. 74% of Gen Z believe generative AI will impact the way they work within the next year. 6% of Gen Zs say their primary career goal is to reach a senior leadership position. Of the 70% of Gen Z who said they would pursue employment at a law firm, just 39% said they would like to work for an Am Law 200 firm. As much as 50% of Gen Z workers are reportedly disengaged from their jobs. The Final Word On Gen Z Lawyers Gen Z lawyers are embracing legal tech to work smarter, championing flexible and forward-thinking business models, and reimagining the way they connect with colleagues and clients. As they move into leadership roles over the coming decade, their values will reshape everything from firm culture to client service delivery models. The firms that thrive will be those that embrace integrated practice management technology and provide the modern legal tools that help lawyers work more effectively. More importantly, they’ll recognize that Gen Z’s approach isn’t simply different. It can also be better, creating more sustainable, efficient, and fulfilling legal careers for everyone.
