Practice Management

If you’re reading legal briefs late at night because administrative tasks consumed your day, you’re not alone. But you don’t have to accept this as the inevitable cost of managing a small law firm. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers small firms a path to compete with larger practices without the overhead. AI tools automate routine tasks, accelerate document review, and enhance client communication—all while reducing operational costs. In this guide, we’ll show you how AI for small law firms addresses the common challenges legal professionals face, cover specific applications, and highlight the best legal AI tools that can make a real difference in your daily operations. What Is AI For Small Law Firms? AI for small law firms refers to technology that performs tasks traditionally requiring human intelligence, such as reviewing contracts, researching case law, or drafting routine communications. AI-powered solutions for lawyers address the unique challenges small legal practices face: Wearing too many hats. When you’re the lawyer, office manager, and IT department all rolled into one, routine tasks eat up hours you could spend on client work. AI handles lots of these repetitive tasks, freeing you to focus on practicing law. Being constrained by tight budgets. Hiring another associate or paralegal isn’t always feasible for small law firms. AI can help cover staffing gaps without the overhead of salary, benefits, and office space. Dealing with high client expectations. They want rapid responses and comprehensive service without premium pricing. AI helps you deliver faster turnaround times without sacrificing quality or burning out your team. Handling time-consuming legal tasks. Document review, legal research, and contract drafting take time. AI dramatically reduces this time, allowing you to take on more cases or maintain reasonable work hours. The bottom line: AI empowers you to focus on high-value legal work by handling routine tasks efficiently. Instead of drowning in administrative work, you can focus on delivering exceptional client service and building strong relationships. Why AI is a Game-Changer For Small Law Firms Every minute counts for small law firms. You can’t afford to waste time on mundane tasks, and you can’t compete by simply working longer hours. Traditional solutions—hiring more staff or extending work days—aren’t realistic for most small practices. Budget constraints make expansion difficult, while overworking impacts your well-being and quality of client service. AI for small law firms becomes transformative by acting as your tireless legal partner, handling tedious work while you focus on high-value legal tasks. When you integrate technology like AI into your practice, you can: Get organized and work faster. AI automates time-consuming work like client follow-ups and routine document drafting. Instead of spending hours on repetitive tasks, you focus on complex legal analysis and client relationship building. Better utilize your staff’s time. Rather than having your paralegals take on time-consuming document review tasks or, paying to outsource legal work, AI handles these tasks at a fraction of the cost, allowing you and your team to focus more on the tasks that only you can do. Compete like the big firms. AI provides capabilities that previously required substantial budgets and large teams. You can deliver faster turnaround times, more strategic guidance, and faster legal research and case analysis, and provide the responsiveness that wins cases and retains clients. What makes AI especially powerful is its effortless integration. It doesn’t require overhauling your entire practice—but it does take a bit of learning. Fortunately, today’s legal AI tools are designed to be intuitive, so you can start seeing benefits without needing to master complex systems. AI tools work behind the scenes to handle existing work faster and more efficiently. 7 Practical Ways AI Can Help Your Small Law Firm You don’t need to overhaul your entire practice to benefit from AI. Start with these seven applications that tackle daily tasks currently consuming your time and resources. Legal research. AI-powered research tools analyze case law, statutes, and regulations in minutes rather than hours. You can ask questions like “find recent cases about employment discrimination in remote work situations” and receive comprehensive results with key findings summaries. Why it matters: Research that previously consumed large portions of your day now takes minutes. You’ll discover relevant precedents you might have missed and gain the insights needed to build stronger legal arguments. Drafting and contracts. AI tools handle initial drafts while you focus on strategy and client needs. These platforms generate contracts, pleadings, and correspondence based on your specifications and past work. They also learn your writing style and incorporate your firm’s preferred language. Why it matters: Dramatically reduce initial drafting time, maintain consistency across all documents, and minimize errors through intelligent template generation that remembers your preferences and standards. Client intake and CRM. AI qualifies leads, schedules appointments, and gathers case information through automated systems operating 24/7, ensuring you never miss potential clients. Smart intake forms adapt questions based on responses and flag high-priority cases for immediate attention. Why it matters: Capture leads during off-hours, respond faster than competitors, and collect necessary information right away while providing immediate engagement to potential clients. Document review. AI tools (such as Clio Duo) enable you to process large document sets without additional staff. It identifies key information in contracts, discovery documents, and case files, flagging important clauses, finding inconsistencies, and extracting relevant data for analysis. Why it matters: Complete discovery document review in a fraction of the time, improve accuracy in finding relevant information, and handle larger cases without proportionally increasing costs. Billing and time tracking. AI automatically tracks time spent on different activities, suggests appropriate billing codes, and identifies potential billing opportunities you might miss when you’re focused on the work itself. Why it matters: Capture more billable time accurately, reduce administrative overhead, and provide clients with detailed bills that demonstrate the value delivered. Compliance and risk. Stay current with regulatory changes without dedicating hours to monitoring updates. AI tools track regulatory developments, identify compliance requirements for clients, and flag potential risks in matters or firm operations. Why it matters: Prevent compliance violations that could harm clients or your practice, maintain current knowledge of changing laws, and identify potential issues before they become costly problems. Marketing and SEO. Build your practice while you focus on practicing law. AI optimizes your firm’s online presence, creates content demonstrating expertise, and identifies potential clients through targeted marketing campaigns. Why it matters: Improve search rankings so potential clients find you first, generate qualified leads consistently, and maintain professional marketing efforts without additional overhead costs. Best AI Tools For Small Law Firms In 2025 Choosing the right AI tools shouldn’t add to your stress when you’re already stretched thin. These AI tools for small law firms deliver real value—with many practices finding that they pay for themselves through time savings and improved efficiency. Clio Duo What it does: Clio Duo is your dynamic AI-powered partner, built into Clio’s legal practice management software. It automates everyday tasks like: quickly accessing information on clients, and cases, bill generation, speeding up document reviews with summarization, and streamlines client replies without the need to type out every message—all while you focus on practicing law. Why small firms love it: You eliminate the complexity of learning multiple systems, paying for separate subscriptions, or switching between platforms throughout your day—Clio Duo lives inside Clio Manage, making it easy to access and use your case information all in one place. The AI handles routine tasks while you manage everything from one dashboard. Clio Duo’s AI capabilities offer a user-friendly interface that requires minimal training. And since it’s designed specifically for the legal industry, it provides features that address unique legal needs. Investment: Clio Duo’s AI capabilities are built into Clio Manage and available as an optional add-on to your Clio Manage account. CoCounsel by Thomson Reuters What it does: CoCounsel is an AI legal assistant handling research, document review, and contract analysis with integration into existing legal research workflows. Why small firms love it: CoCounsel reduces research time and integrates seamlessly with Westlaw, if you’re already using it. The analysis quality is reliable enough to build legal arguments upon, with citations and reasoning users can trust. Investment: CoCounsel Core starts at $225/user/month, with custom pricing available based on usage and firm size. LawGeex What it does: LawGeex provides automated contract review and analysis that identifies risks, missing clauses, and suggests improvements without human intervention. Why small firms love it: LawGeex reviews contracts in minutes, catches issues you might overlook, and helps provide strong client service through comprehensive analysis that clients value. Investment: Basic plan starts at $39/month, with custom enterprise pricing typically ranging from $500 to $2,000 per month depending on contract volume and features needed. Lawmatics What it does: Lawmatics offers client intake and CRM with AI that qualifies leads and manages the entire client acquisition process automatically. Why small firms love it: Lawmatics makes sure you never miss potential clients again. The system operates 24/7 to capture leads and gather information, even when you’re in court or focused on other clients. Investment: Starting around $69/month with various plan options available. Lexis+ AI What it does: Lexis+ AI is a comprehensive legal research platform with integrated AI assistant that drafts, summarizes, and analyzes legal documents while connecting to extensive legal databases. Why small firms choose it: Lexis+ AI combines powerful research capabilities with document drafting in one platform. The AI assistant helps with everything from case research to generating first drafts of motions and briefs, backed by LexisNexis’s trusted legal content. Investment: Lexis+ plans range from $80 to $135 per month per user, with AI features available as add-ons. Custom pricing is available for specific firm needs and multi-year contracts. Spellbook What it does: Spellbook is an AI-powered contract drafting and review tool that works directly inside Microsoft Word, generating clauses and redlining contracts without switching platforms. Why small firms choose it: Spellbook seamlessly integrates with Word, which means no workflow disruption, while its AI learns your firm’s drafting style and preferences. Investment: Custom pricing based on team size, with reports suggesting approximately $180/month per user. Addressing Concerns: Ethics, Costs, and Risks While small firms are often seen as technology leaders, they’re actually falling behind their larger counterparts when it comes to AI adoption. The 2025 Legal Trends for Solo and Small Law Firms report found that only 4% of small law firms have adopted AI widely or universally. However, momentum is building—over 80% of legal professionals expect AI usage to increase in the next year. The key to introducing AI into your firm is separating legitimate concerns from unfounded fears. Let’s examine the main ones. “What about client confidentiality?” Confidentiality is the most common concern, and it’s absolutely the right question to ask. Legal-specific AI tools use enterprise-grade security, often exceeding what most small firms have in place. Tools like Clio Duo are specifically designed for legal professionals, with audit log functionality that tracks all AI activity and ensures your data isn’t used to train external AI models. Many state bars—such as California, Florida, New York—have released ethics opinions in 2024–2025 requiring attorneys to supervise AI outputs and disclose AI use in client work under certain circumstances. This is part of a broader move to ensure lawyers meet their ethical obligations under rules governing competence, confidentiality, and the supervision of nonlawyer assistants. When choosing an AI tool for your small law firm, you need to do your homework. Review vendor security policies, take the time to understand where your data is stored, and ensure any tool meets your state bar’s confidentiality requirements. But don’t let security concerns stop you from tools that actually improve your data security. “Is it reliable?” This concern drives much of the hesitation around AI adoption. The American Bar Association’s 2024 Legal Technology Survey Report found that the greatest barrier to entry is the belief that AI is not completely accurate. Three-quarters of surveyed attorneys cited concerns about AI-generated hallucinations—instances where AI produces plausible-sounding but incorrect information—as their primary reason for avoiding the technology. The key isn’t expecting perfection from AI, but rather implementing it responsibly. Successful firms pair AI with human oversight, applying guardrails and verification processes to ensure accuracy. “Can we actually afford this?” Small firm budgets demand that every expense justify itself quickly. Most AI tools cost significantly less than hiring extra support. You’re typically looking at $50-$200 per month per user for tools saving hours of work daily. Compare this to $3,000-$5,000 monthly for a paralegal, plus benefits, training, and office space. “Will AI replace lawyers?” The short answer: no. AI can’t provide legal judgment, counsel clients through difficult decisions, or advocate in court. It also can’t build relationships, negotiate complex deals, or comfort clients facing legal challenges. These fundamentally human aspects of legal practice remain irreplaceable. What it does do is handle the routine work that takes time away from practicing law. That includes work like document review, initial research, and first drafts—tasks that are necessary but don’t require legal judgment. Eager to learn more about when to use (and not use) AI in your small law firm? Watch our recent webinar recording. How To Get Started With AI In Your Law Firm When it comes to AI for small law firms, you don’t need to transform your entire practice overnight. The best approach is to start small, and then expand from there. Here’s your roadmap for implementing AI for small law firms without disrupting what’s already working. Identify your biggest time drain. Take a careful look at your typical week and identify where you spend time on work that doesn’t require legal judgment. The goal is to find tasks that consume your hours but don’t demand your expertise. Start by tracking one week of your time, noting when you’re doing work that could be handled by someone else. Common culprits include staying late to finish document drafts, spending entire afternoons on legal research, or losing potential clients because you can’t respond to inquiries quickly enough. Choose the right tool. Not all AI tools are created equal, and generic business solutions won’t meet your needs as a legal professional. Focus on solutions built specifically for law firms, as these understand confidentiality requirements, integrate with legal workflows, and provide features relevant to your practice. Before committing to any tool, invest time in research. Read reviews from other small firms rather than relying on vendor testimonials, since solo practitioners and small teams have different needs than large corporate legal departments. Take advantage of free trials or webinars to see whether the tool actually works for your specific practice area and workflow. Pay attention to vendor support quality during your evaluation. Even the best AI tool is useless without reliable support. Start with one solution. This might be the most important step, and it’s where many firms go wrong. Implement one tool completely before adding another. Your team needs time to adapt, and it’s wise to see real results before expanding your AI toolkit. Choose your timing carefully. Avoid starting during your busiest periods like trial season or tax deadlines. Instead, pick a relatively calm period where you can dedicate attention to learning without compromising client service. Getting buy-in from your team is crucial, especially if you have support staff who will be using the tool daily. Explain not just what you’re implementing, but why it will make their work easier and more interesting. Set realistic expectations about the learning curve—most people need a few weeks to feel comfortable with new workflows, and that’s perfectly normal. Invest in training. The difference between AI tools that transform your practice and AI tools that frustrate your team usually comes down to training. Most vendors offer onboarding sessions, video tutorials, and ongoing support, but you need to take advantage of these resources. Schedule dedicated learning time rather than trying to squeeze training between client work. This means blocking out time on your calendar just like you would for continuing education. A great starting point is Clio’s legal AI course—a free, self-paced program designed specifically for legal professionals to build confidence in using AI effectively and ethically. Invite everyone who will use the tool, including support staff, since they often discover practical applications that lawyers miss. Practice with real examples from your practice rather than generic scenarios. If you’re implementing a document drafting tool, use your actual templates and client matters for training. This makes the learning more relevant and helps you identify potential issues before they affect client work. Measure what matters. Track specific improvements to justify the investment and guide future decisions. The key is measuring concrete changes rather than general impressions. Focus on metrics that directly impact your bottom line. That might be time savings on specific tasks like research or drafting, increases in billable hours captured through better time tracking, improvements in client response times, and reductions in errors or missed deadlines. For example, if you implement an AI research tool, track how long research takes before and after implementation. If you add automated client intake, measure how many more leads you capture and convert. These concrete measurements help you understand ROI and make informed decisions about expanding AI use in your practice. The Final Word On AI For Small Law Firms AI offers small law firms a powerful opportunity to compete more effectively while reducing costs and improving client service. The efficiency gains and competitive advantages make AI adoption increasingly necessary for firms wanting to thrive in today’s market. The firms implementing AI now will build stronger practices and serve clients better. Those who wait risk falling behind competitors who are already using AI to their advantage.

At Society 54, we believe strategy shouldn’t be confined to a binder or pulled out for review only once a year. It should be actionable, dynamic, and directly tied to real-time insights into your firm’s operations. In today’s legal landscape, the most successful firms understand how to utilize quantifiable data not only to track performance but also to drive meaningful, organization-wide change. Strategy Backed by Real Data Strategic planning often begins with financial metrics, including profitability per attorney, realization rates, and revenue growth. These are essential, but they’re only part of the picture. A forward-thinking plan also looks inward at operational data, examining how internal teams collaborate, how long key processes take, and the allocation of resources. By expanding the scope of what gets measured, firms gain visibility into the fundamental drivers of performance and culture. And when done right, that clarity enables leaders to develop strategies grounded in facts rather than assumptions. Case Study: Rethinking Attorney Onboarding One client came to us with a challenge familiar to many firms: their attorney onboarding process was inconsistent and overly complex. So, they began measuring everything—the number of internal touchpoints, time to productivity, and where new hires encountered difficulties. By analyzing this data, the firm realized that multiple departments were duplicating efforts. They responded by developing a centralized onboarding framework that included a timeline, an ownership map, and a series of checklists and automation tools. The result? The onboarding process transitioned from disjointed to seamless, resulting in increased attorney satisfaction. Practice group leaders also noticed that new hires contributed more quickly to the group. More importantly, the success of this initiative encouraged other departments to examine their processes, creating a ripple effect across the organization. Case Study: Measuring the True Cost of a Signature Event In another instance, a client’s Marketing and Business Development (“MBD”) team tracked hours spent on a marquee client event that had become a firm tradition. The data told a clear story: the event consumed hundreds of hours from high-level team members, pulling them away from other strategic initiatives. By quantifying this time investment, the firm could make informed decisions. They outsourced specific logistics, streamlined workflows, and shifted internal focus to content and relationship-building. Not only did the team feel more energized and focused, but the event improved, and so did the return on investment. The Bigger Picture: Driving Culture Shift with Metrics These case studies aren’t just about process improvement; they’re about transformation. When firms begin to measure internal operations with the same rigor they apply to client billing, they unlock strategic opportunities across the organization. Tracking internal data helps uncover blind spots. It creates shared language and accountability across departments. It enables firm leadership to align people, processes, and priorities in a manner that supports long-term success. Build Your Culture to Embrace Curiosity and Continued Improvement Using data to drive change isn’t about micromanagement; it’s about curiosity and a desire to learn and grow. When leaders and teams genuinely become interested in how work is done and how it could be improved, innovation follows. That’s how you build a strategy that’s not only measurable but truly transformative. Ultimately, strategic planning becomes more than just a checklist. It becomes a tool for building alignment, enhancing culture, and driving the firm forward. The insights are already there; you need to start measuring what matters. The firms that thrive aren’t just tracking metrics; they’re acting on them. If your strategic plan isn’t evolving in line with your data, you’re preserving the status quo, not making progress. Start with what matters, dig into how your firm operates, and use those insights to fuel real momentum. When strategy becomes part of the everyday, it stops being theoretical and starts driving transformation. What to Track (Beyond Financial Metrics) This list scratches the surface of the items that can be tracked to help strengthen performance and culture. Consider picking one or two as a starting point and building from there. Internal collaboration metrics: Frequency of cross-functional meetings and outcomes of shared projects Process timelines: Time required to complete standard internal workflows (e.g., proposal development, lateral onboarding) Attorney engagement: Participation rates in firm initiatives such as mentorship, affinity programs, and BD training Workload allocation: Distribution of work across attorneys and staff, highlighting bottlenecks or duplication Client feedback loop: How often and how thoroughly client feedback is collected, shared, and acted upon Training hours completed: Continuing education and development tracked at individual and group levels Event/initiative ROI (time-based): Time spent versus value gained on non-billable initiatives Adoption rates: Use of internal tools and resources, including CRM, knowledge systems, and project management software

The gap between AI’s promise and its practical implementation in legal organizations is substantial. After 25 years designing and deploying technology solutions in legal environments, I’ve observed a consistent pattern: the organizations that successfully bridge this gap focus less on cutting-edge algorithms and more on strategic implementation methodologies. Technology is necessary but insufficient. Execution is where the real differentiation happens. The Implementation Gap Legal organizations often approach AI implementation with a technology-first mindset, focusing primarily on selecting advanced algorithms and platforms. This approach consistently under-delivers for three reasons: Technology without strategy lacks direction. Without clear business objectives and implementation methodology, even the most sophisticated AI becomes a solution in search of a problem. Tools without adoption create no value. Legal AI solutions that aren’t effectively integrated into workflows and embraced by users generate cost without corresponding benefit. Capabilities without governance create risk. Advanced AI deployed without appropriate oversight can create ethical, privacy, and professional responsibility challenges that outweigh benefits. The organizations that successfully harness AI’s potential have shifted their focus from technology selection to implementation methodology. Their approaches share common elements that create a blueprint for effective execution. The Five Pillars of Effective Implementation Through extensive work with legal organizations implementing AI solutions, I’ve identified five core elements that consistently differentiate successful initiatives. Problem-Centric Approach The most successful implementations begin with clear problem definitions rather than technology capabilities. This requires: Specific problem articulation— defining exactly what needs to be solved in concrete terms Quantifiable success metrics— establishing how outcomes will be measured Prioritization frameworks— determining which problems should be addressed first For example, rather than starting with “We need AI for contract review,” effective organizations might define the problem as: “Our current contract review process takes an average of 12 days, creating bottlenecks for the sales team and delaying revenue recognition. We need to reduce review time by 50% while maintaining or improving risk identification.” This clarity creates focus, enables precise solution selection, and establishes measurable success criteria. Architectural Thinking Successful organizations approach AI not as isolated tools but as components in a broader architecture. This requires: Process mapping— understanding how work currently flows through the organization Integration planning— determining how AI tools will connect with existing systems Data flow design— planning how information will move between systems and people Consider a legal department implementing a contract analysis tool. Instead of viewing it as a standalone application, they map its connections to document management systems, knowledge repositories, and workflow tools. This architectural approach ensures that the AI solution enhances rather than disrupts existing processes. This isn’t just systems integration. It’s about creating a coherent ecosystem where technology and human work complement each other. Progressive Data Strategy Data is the foundation of effective AI, but many legal organizations struggle with data quality and accessibility. Successful implementers adopt a progressive approach. Start with available data— use what exists while building toward the ideal Prioritize high-value improvements— focus first on data quality issues with the greatest impact Build data governance incrementally— create sustainable processes that improve quality over time For instance, a litigation practice might begin AI implementation using well-structured data from recent cases, while simultaneously developing processes to improve the organization of historical information. This enables immediate progress while building toward more comprehensive capabilities. Perfect data isn’t a prerequisite for starting. Progressive improvement is the key to sustainable success. Deliberate Change Management Even the best-designed AI solutions fail without effective change management. Successful implementers focus on: Stakeholder mapping— identifying who will be affected and how Resistance analysis— understanding potential barriers to adoption Value demonstration— showing clear benefits to users Capability building— developing the skills needed for effective use Consider a firm implementing an AI-powered legal research platform. They might identify partners who fear loss of control, associates concerned about skills development, and knowledge managers worried about quality control. By addressing these specific concerns and demonstrating how the platform enhances rather than threatens each stakeholder’s role, they dramatically increase adoption. Technology implementation is ultimately human transformation. Governance by Design Rather than treating governance as an afterthought, successful organizations build it into the implementation process from the beginning. Ethical frameworks— establish principles for responsible AI use Quality control mechanisms— create processes to verify AI outputs Responsibility models— clarify who is accountable for different aspects of AI systems Monitor protocols— implement ongoing oversight of AI performance For example, a corporate legal department implementing an AI contract analysis tool might establish clear protocols for when attorney review is required, how anomalous results are handled, and who bears responsibility for decisions based on AI recommendations. This governance framework ensures the technology is used appropriately and responsibly. Governance isn’t a constraint on innovation. It’s what makes innovation sustainable. Implementation in Action: Three Success Patterns Organizations that excel at AI implementation typically follow one of three primary patterns, each suited to different contexts: The Targeted Pilot Approach This pattern focuses on proving value quickly through narrow, well-defined implementations before scaling. Start small— select a specific use case with clear boundaries Prove value— demonstrate measurable benefits Expand methodically— apply lessons learned to additional use cases A global law firm used this approach when implementing AI-powered due diligence. They began with a single transaction type in one practice group, refined their approach based on results, and then expanded to additional practice areas. This incremental approach built confidence, developed expertise, and created advocates within the firm. This pattern works particularly well in organizations with high skepticism or risk aversion. The Platform Strategy This approach focuses on building foundational capabilities that can support multiple applications. Create core infrastructure— establish data, integration, and governance foundations Enable experimentation— provide tools and frameworks for multiple initiatives Centralize expertise— build a shared resource of technical and implementation knowledge A large corporate legal department implemented this strategy by first focusing on document standardization, knowledge management infrastructure, and data governance frameworks. Once this foundation was established, they supported practice-specific AI initiatives across multiple legal functions with dramatically higher success rates than similar organizations. This pattern is most effective in larger organizations with diverse use cases and significant resources. The Transformational Approach This pattern uses AI implementation as a catalyst for broader organizational change. Reimagine processes— use implementation as an opportunity to redesign workflows Evolve roles— redefine responsibilities in light of new capabilities Shift metrics— create new measures of success aligned with technology capabilities A mid-sized law firm used AI implementation to completely reimagine their litigation support function, redefining attorney, paralegal, and support staff roles while implementing new collaboration and service delivery models. The technology implementation served as the catalyst for a more fundamental transformation. This pattern is most appropriate when existing processes are significantly underperforming or when external pressures necessitate radical change. Common Implementation Pitfalls Even with sound methodology, certain pitfalls consistently undermine AI implementation in legal organizations. The perfection trap. Many organizations delay implementation while seeking perfect solutions or ideal data. This approach sacrifices immediate benefits while perfect solutions remain elusive. The more effective approach focuses on progressive improvement: start with good enough solutions that deliver value today, while building toward better solutions tomorrow. The isolated innovation model. Some organizations create innovation teams or labs disconnected from day-to-day operations. While these groups may develop impressive prototypes, their solutions often fail to translate into production because they lack practical context. Successful organizations instead create integrated innovation models where technology experts work alongside legal practitioners in real operational contexts. The technology tunnel vision. Organizations sometimes become fixated on technological sophistication at the expense of practical usability. This results in impressive capabilities that go unused because they don’t fit into actual work patterns. The best implementations prioritize integration into daily workflow over technical sophistication, recognizing that adoption is the true measure of success. The governance afterthought. Many organizations treat governance as something to be addressed after implementation, only to discover critical ethical, privacy, or responsibility issues that could have been anticipated. Effective implementations incorporate governance considerations from the beginning, ensuring that solutions are both powerful and responsible. Building Implementation Capability For organizations looking to improve their AI implementation capabilities, three investments consistently deliver returns: Develop Implementation Methodologies Create standardized approaches to AI implementation that incorporate the five pillars discussed above. These methodologies should be: Flexible enough to accommodate different use cases Structured enough to ensure consistency Practical enough to be used by non-specialists The organizations with the highest success rates have clear, documented implementation methodologies that guide projects from conception through execution. Build Cross-Functional Implementation Teams Create teams that combine legal, technical, and operational perspectives. These teams should include: Legal subject matter experts who understand the substantive work Technical specialists who understand AI capabilities and limitations Process designers who can reimagine workflows Change facilitators who can drive adoption The most successful organizations maintain standing implementation teams rather than assembling them ad hoc for each project. Create Implementation Knowledge Management Establish systems to capture and share implementation lessons. These should include: Case studies documenting both successes and failures Reusable components like requirements templates and evaluation frameworks Knowledge-sharing mechanisms like communities of practice Organizations that systematically learn from their implementation experiences dramatically improve their success rates over time. The Future of Legal AI Implementation As AI technology continues to advance, implementation capability will become an increasingly important differentiator. The organizations that excel won’t necessarily be those with the most advanced technology, but those that most effectively translate technological potential into practical value. This isn’t just about operational efficiency. It’s about competitive advantage. Organizations that can consistently implement AI solutions faster and more effectively than their peers will deliver better client service, reduce costs, and attract top talent. For legal professionals, developing implementation skills represents a significant career opportunity. The ability to bridge technical and legal domains, to translate between stakeholder needs and technological capabilities, is becoming increasingly valuable. The future belongs not just to those who understand the technology, but to those who can implement it effectively. That’s where possibility becomes reality.

The legal profession is standing at the edge of a radical transformation. Technology, shifting client expectations, new business models, and the accelerating pace of change are exposing a critical question: Will your law firm exist in five years? At Best Era, LLC, we consult with clients around the world and begin by asking them where they want to be in five years. If you aren’t thinking about five years from now, you should pause, and spend some time doing so. This isn’t just a rhetorical question. It’s one that demands sober, strategic reflection. The truth is that many firms won’t survive, not because they weren’t competent or profitable, but because they failed to adapt. If you’re leading a law firm, here are seven key questions that will determine whether you’ll still be in business half a decade from now. 1. Why Does Your Firm Exist? If you can’t answer this question clearly and persuasively, you’re already in trouble. Too many firms define their existence by inertia: We’ve always been here. Or circumstance: We signed a 10-year lease. Or comfort: We’re still making money. These are not reasons—they’re symptoms of complacency. A firm that wants to thrive must have: Well-defined values that serve as a compass in turbulent times. A clearly defined niche, because “we do everything” no longer works in a world of specialization and rapid information access. A value proposition that evolves, rooted in solving real problems in unique ways. If you don’t know why your firm exists beyond paying salaries and overhead, your future is up for grabs. The firms that will survive are mission-driven, nimble, and clear on their why. 2. Why Would Anyone Work for You? If your answer is “money,” you’re in serious danger. The legal workforce is shifting. Lawyers, especially younger ones, are increasingly driven by meaning, impact, lifestyle, and growth. Yes, they want to be paid fairly—but they also want: Purpose-driven work. Opportunities to innovate and lead. Work-life integration, not just work-life balance. Transparency and autonomy. In the age of remote work, digital tools, and widespread entrepreneurship, it’s never been easier for a talented lawyer to go solo. If your culture is built solely around compensation, you’ll find yourself in a constant cycle of turnover and talent drain. Firms that win in the next five years will create environments people want to be part of—because of how it feels, what it stands for, and what it enables. 3. Are You Hiring for the Skillsets of the Future? The skills that made a great lawyer in 2010 are not the same ones that will define success in 2030. Traditional legal education emphasized: Deep legal research. Meticulous writing. Adversarial thinking. Those skills still matter, but they’re no longer sufficient. Today, forward-thinking firms are hiring for: Project management expertise— because legal matters increasingly resemble complex operations. AI fluency— understanding how to prompt, audit, and collaborate with artificial intelligence tools. Client experience design— because value is judged not just by outcomes, but by process and communication. If your hiring is rooted in resumes and class ranks alone, you’re missing the moment. Firms of the future need people who can build, adapt, and lead in uncertainty. 4. How Strong Are Your Community Relationships? Law is a trust-based profession. And trust is built through proximity, consistency, and value. Firms that operate in a vacuum, rarely engaging with their community, industry, or niche—are out of touch and at risk. Ask yourself: Are we showing up where our clients and peers are? Are we listening to what they care about? Are we giving back in meaningful ways? Whether it’s through thought leadership, nonprofit partnerships, pro bono efforts, or local presence, community is your moat. Weak relationships mean weak referrals, poor retention, and diminished brand strength. 5. Is Your Business Model Built for a Post-Billable-Hour World? The “death of the billable hour” has been written about for decades. But today, it’s finally on life support. Why? Because AI, automation, and process optimization are collapsing the time it takes to deliver legal work. Tasks that used to take three days now take 30 minutes. If you’re billing by the hour, you’re incentivized to be slower, not smarter. Clients are noticing. The future belongs to firms that: Offer value-based pricing. Bundle services with subscriptions or flat fees. Use data and transparency to build trust, not mystery. If your margins depend on dragging out routine work, your model is in jeopardy. Start rethinking value, not as time spent, but as problems solved. 6. Are You Ready for a Leveled Playing Field? The tools of BigLaw are no longer exclusive. A solo practitioner armed with Westlaw AI, a decent case management system, and a smart strategy can now: Draft contracts at scale. File complex litigation. Deliver 24/7 client updates. This is a tectonic shift. Technology is democratizing legal services. You don’t need a floor of associates and paralegals to compete anymore—you need leverage and precision. This means: Rethinking your firm’s cost structure. Redesigning workflows for maximum automation. Competing on strategy and insight, not brute force. Legacy is no longer a moat. Agility is. 7. Can You Justify Working at Your Firm? Let’s say you’re a talented associate or even a partner. You’re watching AI eat time, remote work untethering geography, and legal entrepreneurs thriving with minimal overhead. Why stay? That’s the question your current and future lawyers are asking. If you want to retain and attract top talent, you’ll need answers like: “Because we offer growth and mentorship you can’t get elsewhere.” “Because our platform helps you scale your impact.” “Because we make it easy to do your best work without burning out.” Gone are the days when security and tradition were enough. Today’s legal professionals want alignment, innovation, and freedom. And if they don’t get it from you, they’ll go build it themselves. Conclusion: Five Years Is Closer Than You Think This isn’t alarmism—it’s realism. Law firms that thrive in the next five years will not be the biggest or the most prestigious. They will be: Mission-aligned. Tech-enabled. Client-centered. Talent-smart. If you’re not actively evolving in those directions, the clock is ticking. Start with the hard questions. Build from first principles. And above all, don’t assume you’re safe just because you’re profitable today. The winds have shifted. Make sure your sails are set.

Employers are often faced with complaints of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and other kinds of misconduct. While no two investigations are identical, specific strategies exist to help conduct effective workplace investigations, which in turn helps build trust within the organization, lends a listening ear to aggrieved and accused employees and protects the organization from liability. This alert highlights strategies for ensuring that your workplace investigations promote organizational integrity, establish fair treatment, and foster a positive work environment. Identify the Scope Defining the scope of a workplace investigation is fundamental to its success and efficiency. A well-defined scope acts as a roadmap, preventing investigators from pursuing irrelevant leads while ensuring all pertinent issues are thoroughly examined. Without clear boundaries, investigations risk becoming unfocused fishing expeditions that waste resources, delay resolution, and potentially create additional liability. Investigators must identify the specific allegations and the relevant time period(s), parties involved, and evidence. They should also establish which policies are at issue and may have been violated. This framework helps maintain objectivity and ensures investigations remain focused on substantiating or disproving specific claims rather than expanding into tangential matters. Create Your Investigation Plan The moment a complaint is reported, the clock starts ticking. It is imperative to promptly investigate and to not unreasonably delay an investigation or to appear unresponsive to the allegations made. A timely investigation is critical to resolving and addressing any issues and to asserting possible defenses should the matter lead to litigation. While an effective investigation isn’t necessarily completed overnight, companies should consider timelines of one week, two weeks, or sometimes a month depending on the nature of the claims, the number of documents to review, and the number of interviewees involved. The investigator should come into each witness interview armed with an outline of questions to help guide the discussion. While the outline need not be followed rigidly, the outline can help the investigator stay organized, ensure key topics are covered, and help maintain a structured flow, ultimately leading to a more focused and successful interview. Additionally, the investigator should consider what the relevant documents are and ensure that all documents pertinent to the claims have been reviewed. For instance, does the investigator have access to relevant emails, text messages, complaints to human resources, disciplinary documents, and personnel files? Though it is not uncommon for new documents to be discovered during an interview, the investigator should enter the interview with a grasp of what the file entails. Last, when establishing a plan, choose a location where the interviewee will feel comfortable speaking frankly and truthfully. The environment of the interview can play a significant role in shaping the outcome of the interview. If the interviewee feels embarrassed, threatened, or spotlighted, the interviewee may not speak with full candor. To the extent possible, interviews should take place in a private room free from distractions or visibility to the interviewee’s colleagues. Off-site conference rooms or even remote interviews during which the interviewee is at home are encouraged. In some cases, it may be necessary to choose different locations for the various interviewees depending on the circumstances. In other words, a high-level manager with a secluded office may be interviewed in a different setting than an intern assigned to a cubicle alongside other colleagues. The investigator should also consider whether the individuals being interviewed are hourly employees who need to be compensated for the time spent participating in the investigation. Decide Whether Immediate Action is Necessary Businesses may be confronted with the issue of whether it is necessary to take immediate action after a complaint is reported. Depending on the nature of the complaint, taking immediate steps to protect the complainant may be critical. This may take the form of paid temporary leave, schedule adjustments, or physically separating the workspaces of the complainant and accused to prevent any further misconduct. Employers must be aware, however, that such decisions should not go so far as to burden or inconvenience the complainant and their ability to perform their job duties during the investigation. For example, placing the complainant on an unpaid suspension or transferring their work location without their consent can be perceived as retaliatory and is not recommended. Similarly, an employer must consider whether to remove the accused from the workplace pending investigation, temporarily reassign the accused to an alternative work assignment, and/or whether to compensate the accused if they are suspended pending investigation. Each investigation is unique and may warrant different circumstances during the pendency of an investigation. Communicate the “No Retaliation” Rule One of the most pressing considerations is ensuring that a workplace investigation does not result in retaliation. Every interviewee should be told at the outset that retaliation will not be tolerated against those who complain or those who participate in investigations. It must be made clear that acts of retaliation will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Workplace investigations can place employees on the defensive, because they often feel like they are being accused of wrongdoing, even if they are not. This can lead to a sense of personal attack, fear of repercussions, and a desire to protect themselves by minimizing their involvement. Thus, communicating a “no retaliation” rule is critical in protecting the company and encouraging participation in the process. Employees should be instructed not to retaliate against anyone and should similarly be put on notice to report any retaliation they may face as a result of their own participation. Additionally, the investigator must explain that information provided during the interview may be shared with others only if absolutely necessary. Interviewees should understand that complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed and may be virtually impossible to maintain in the event that a lawsuit arises. Should litigation be pursued, the interviewee should know that relevant parties will require copies of all statements and case-related documents. At the same time, the investigator can reassure the subject that they intend to uphold confidentiality as much as possible and that they plan to gather all available facts before reaching any conclusions. Choosing the Right Investigator One of the most avoidable hiccups is choosing the wrong investigator. The choice of investigator directly impacts the investigation’s credibility, effectiveness, and legal defensibility. Employers should pay heed to choosing an investigator with awareness and sensitivity. Differences in background, understanding, and experiences might affect communication styles, power dynamics, and interpretation of events. Remain Impartial Impartiality is key. The investigator should focus on maintaining a neutral and impartial tone throughout the course of the interview so as to not discredit impartiality or cause the interviewee to question their motives. While it may be tempting to gain the interviewee’s trust by acting like you are on their side, any flaws in the process can be used to challenge the credibility of the investigation’s findings, leading to potential legal liability for the employer. Reaching a Determination and Communicating to All Parties After conducting the initial interviews and any necessary follow-up interviews, there should be a formal conclusion to the investigation memorialized in writing. The final written report should reach an ultimate conclusion as to the facts and whether policies were violated, but should not opine on issues of law or use legal terms. The report should also highlight a section that provides a clear statement of the findings of the investigation on each key issue, including any issues that were not resolved. The final report should also include a list of the parties involved, employer policies or guidelines relevant to the investigation, and the parties responsible for making the final determination. The report should assess the credibility of witnesses. Did the interviewee display a clear sense of personal interest in the results of the investigation? Is the interviewee’s job on the line and would they have any reason to be untruthful? Does the interviewee have an obvious animus towards the complainant or accused? The investigator should be assessing the interviewee’s subjective credibility in ensuring whether their answers are truthful and accurate. The investigator may be tasked with issuing a recommendation on the employment decision, at which point a member of the business, in consultation with legal counsel, will assess, finalize, or reject that recommendation. If tasked with issuing the business a recommendation, the investigator should clearly identify the basis for their recommendation in an impartial manner, using the facts and information obtained during the course of the investigation. Last, effective communication is paramount when closing an investigation. An organization may want to consider the following approaches: providing appropriate notifications to involved parties while maintaining confidentiality, communicating outcomes to relevant stakeholders without disclosing sensitive details, ensuring transparency about the process and commitment to organizational standards, and offering support resources for employees affected by the investigation. Closing the Investigation Closing a workplace investigation is a delicate and crucial process that requires careful attention to detail, legal compliance, and organizational integrity. The manner in which an investigation is concluded can significantly impact employee trust, organizational culture, and potential future legal implications. Based on the investigation’s findings, the organization will want to develop a clear and actionable plan for resolution. This may include: Disciplinary actions for substantiated misconduct; Targeted training or educational interventions; Policy revisions or organizational practice improvements; Mediation or conflict resolution strategies for interpersonal issues. An investigation’s closure is not the end of the process, but a new beginning. Organizations should work to implement a follow-up plan to monitor the effectiveness of corrective actions, conduct periodic check-ins with the involved parties, track any recommended organizational changes, and assess the long-term impact of the investigation’s outcomes. By approaching the closure of a workplace investigation with thoroughness, empathy, and strategic insight, organizations can transform a potentially challenging situation into an opportunity for positive change and continuous improvement.

Let’s get it out of the way: Referrals still reign supreme when it comes to getting new clients. In the 2025 edition of Greentarget and Zeughauser Group’s survey of decision-makers, “recommendations from sources you trust” is the No. 1 method clients use to find new outside counsel, cited by 92 percent of in-house counsel and 86 percent of C-suite executives. While referrals remain the dominant go-to method for your potential clients, they are also frustratingly finite: Your potential referrals are limited by your personal network. While the Pew Research Center estimates that most of us have about 634 ties in our overall networks, the number of relationships we can maintain for mutual benefit (i.e., I do your legal work, and you refer me to a friend) is 150. So how can you attract clients outside your 150 ties? Let’s look at the other tactics your prospects turn to: Publications and Presentations Writing and speaking take second place with both in-house counsel and C-suite leaders, used by 78 percent and 74 percent, respectively. And for good reason: both provide the equivalent of free samples of your perspective and your approach—exactly why they would hire you. The influence of your writing and speaking is amplified when it is delivered through a publication, organization or event they highly trust. Professional Biography If your law firm website was a store, the biography is your product description, showing potential clients your experience, background and—ideally—the benefits they can expect by hiring you. Bios are reviewed by 67 percent of in-house counsel and 74 percent of business leaders. Related, your LinkedIn profile matters, too: It’s consulted by 62 percent of in-house lawyers and 74 percent of the C-suite. Content While they lack the third-party endorsement of a major publication or trade organization newsletter, blog posts on topics that are relevant to their particular industry or issue are used by a majority of potential clients in the scouting process—62 percent of in-house counsel and 57 percent of executives. Peer-Driven Rankings and Directories Love them or hate them, accolades like Chambers, Benchmark, IP STARS and others still carry weight with more than half of your prospective clients—56 percent of in-house lawyers and 62 percent of executives. Quotes in Relevant Media Outlets Being quoted as an expert source helps with fewer than half (42 percent) of in-house lawyers, but earned media remains a popular way to reach business leaders, with 51 percent considering quotes in their attorney searches. What’s not on the list? Posts on X (formerly Twitter) took a precipitous drop in this edition of the survey, going from use by 48 percent of the C-suite to just 36 percent, and from 21 percent of in-house lawyers to just 13 percent. Meanwhile, law firms should not be overly concerned with their Wikipedia pages, referred to by 24 percent of C-level executives and 13 percent of in-house lawyers. What does this mean for you? To reach potential clients outside your immediate network—and to bolster your standings among referrals who look you up—consider four activities: Pursue writing and speaking opportunities with outlets that are relevant to your target clients. Think beyond bar events; what conferences or conventions do your prospects attend? Where do they speak or sponsor? What do they read? Some light LinkedIn stalking can be very informative. Want to be a true authority in your priority industries or markets? Consider conducting a survey to position yourself as an authority with exclusive insights. Update your firm biography. This website page may be the most powerful document in your marketing arsenal, capturing the attention of two out of three in-house counsel. Make it current and compelling, and make sure it provides evidence of your capabilities, not just claims. Show your expertise through content. Publishing insights and analysis on your firm’s website gives you an owned media channel that can impress potential clients and draw additional traffic, expanding your network even more. Make it useful, current and concise. Take a purposeful approach to awards and rankings. The Greentarget/Zeughauser report refers to these as “icing on the cake” for your prospects; they may not get you the work on their own, but they can serve as a third-party seal of approval in the consideration process. Survey your competition: Where are they ranked? Where can you unseat them? Are there any industry awards—e.g., the ‘Widget Industry Lawyer of the Year’—that could mean more to your clients than another lawyer-to-lawyer prize? Choose one award you can either add or upgrade, and play to win. In 2025, nearly half of attorneys and law firm marketers said that business development will be harder than in 2024, according to BTI Consulting—and that was before increased chatter about a possible recession. In this kind of environment, it’s dangerous to rely on passive referrals alone; improve your business development probabilities with marketing communications tactics that are shown to get the attention of the prospects who matter most.

A Familiar Story of Communication Chaos You’ve likely lived this scenario. It’s Monday morning. You have a deposition at 10, a court call at 2, and a mountain of emails to sift through. Your paralegal pokes her head in: “Hey, did anyone ever follow up on that new lead from Thursday?” You haven’t heard a thing. You join a hastily scheduled Zoom meeting where no one seems prepared. The marketing head talks about leads. Finance interjects with cashflow concerns. Operations need clarity on hiring. Forty-five minutes go by. You hang up frustrated, knowing nothing really got done. Afterward, a partner swings by: “Hey, what did we decide about intake scripts?” You sigh. “I don’t think we actually decided anything.” Welcome to the paradox of modern law firm life: we have too many meetings and not enough communication. How is that possible? Because what most firms suffer from isn’t over-communication, it’s misaligned communication. The Cost of Misalignment According to a study by McKinsey, employees spend nearly 61% of their workweek on “work about work”—status updates, internal communication, and meetings—not actual productive tasks. Harvard Business Review reports that senior executives spend nearly 23 hours a week in meetings, and 71% of them say meetings are unproductive and inefficient. The legal profession isn’t immune. In fact, we might be one of the worst offenders. Lawyers are busy. Everyone is in trial prep, answering client emails, or billing time. So, we add more meetings to fix the problem—weekly check-ins, project updates, all-hands. But instead of solving issues, we drown in overlapping conversations, vague follow-ups, and inconsistent decision-making. At the same time, critical information isn’t shared across departments. Marketing launches a new campaign, but intake doesn’t know how to qualify the leads. A new associate is hired, but no one trained them on file naming protocols. Sound familiar? What this creates is not just inefficiency—it’s exhaustion. Communication Without a System Is Just Noise I’ve lived this chaos. At my firm, we grew from a napkin-and-Panera vision to a $100 million verdict and a thirty-person team. But in the early years, it was messy. We were reactive, putting out fires, and throwing more meetings at the problem. We were trying to scale without a map. Eventually, we discovered that the issue wasn’t just our communication—it was our lack of a system for it. That’s why we built The Way —a law firm operating system designed specifically for small and mid-sized firms. It’s how we transformed our leadership team from stressed-out survivors to aligned strategic thinkers. It’s how we cut meeting time, improved decision-making, and turned our firm into a business we actually loved running. Meetings Aren’t the Enemy—Bad Meetings Are The problem with law firm meetings isn’t quantity—it’s quality and clarity. The Way flips the typical meeting culture on its head. Instead of endless unstructured discussions, we use a rhythm of short, purpose-driven meetings that keep the team aligned and the business moving forward. Here’s how it works: 1. Weekly Check-Ins (30 Minutes Max) We run sacred 30-minute meetings each week with our leadership team. The agenda is simple: Good news (1–2 minutes each) Progress snapshots (quick “on schedule” or “off schedule” updates) KPI review (to make sure the business is healthy) One pressing opportunity (a real problem we tackle together) That’s it. We don’t talk in circles. We don’t problem-dump. We don’t meet unless we have a reason. These check-ins have saved us hundreds of hours. More importantly, they’ve made our leaders accountable for their priorities. 2. Monthly Stops (90 Minutes) Once a month, we replace a weekly check-in with a deeper 90-minute review where we explore three opportunities in the business—things we’ve been observing and tracking. This meeting creates space for reflection, cross-functional problem-solving, and strategic pivots. 3. Quarterly Milestones Every 90 days, we run a half-day planning meeting. We review how the last quarter went, identify missed goals (and why), and reset priorities for the next 90 days. Everyone leaves that meeting knowing exactly what they’re responsible for—and how success will be measured. 4. The Annual Meeting (The Big One) The annual meeting is where alignment becomes reality. We reflect, set our 5-year vision, define quarterly milestones, and recommit to our firm’s values. For a lot of firms, this is the first time the leadership team is truly rowing in the same direction. And that, in my experience, changes everything. Communication = Culture = Results When you implement The Way, something surprising happens: your firm gets quiet. The “just checking in” messages disappear. You stop playing calendar Tetris with everyone’s schedules. Team members start solving problems on their own—because they already know the goals, systems, and expectations. The result? More time. More energy. Better decisions. That’s not just our experience—it’s what the research shows: Companies with highly effective communication practices had 47% higher total returns to shareholders over a five-year period (Towers Watson). 86% of employees cite lack of collaboration and ineffective communication as the main causes of workplace failures (Salesforce). High-performing teams are twice as likely to have clarity on goals and individual responsibilities (Harvard Business Review). When law firms build a communication system that reinforces clarity and accountability, the business doesn’t just survive—it scales. The Magic Is in the Structure The genius of The Way is its simplicity. You don’t need an expensive consultant, a team of MBAs, or a complicated org chart to implement it. You just need to: Run a proper Annual Meeting with a clear destination and quarterly milestones. Create a cadence of check-ins (weekly, monthly, and quarterly). Assign responsibility for each milestone. Track a small set of KPIs to know whether the business is healthy. Stick with it. Over time, you’ll start noticing things: People stop asking what the priorities are. Deadlines don’t slip through the cracks. Morale improves, because clarity reduces stress. Leadership becomes a team sport. No More “Winging It” I’ve talked with dozens of firm owners who have some version of this confession: “Honestly, we’re kind of just winging it.” There’s no shame in that. Most of us didn’t go to law school to run businesses. But here we are. What The Wa y offers is a blueprint—not just for meetings, but for alignment, accountability, and long-term success. You don’t have to wing it anymore. You can lead with intention. You can give your team structure. You can run meetings that actually move the business forward. And if you do, the business you’ve always wanted isn’t just possible—it’s inevitable. Final Thoughts You don’t need more meetings. You need better meetings, guided by a better system. The Way was built by lawyers, for lawyers. It’s designed for small and growing firms who want to stop reacting and start leading. It’s not fancy. It’s not magic. It just works. In our firm, implementing The Way tripled our revenue in three years—not by working more, but by working smarter. If your leadership meetings feel aimless, your team seems confused, or your calendar is filled with noise— The Way might be the solution you’ve been looking for. Let’s stop wasting time. Let’s start building the business you deserve. 

“We just can’t find good people.” Sound familiar? You’ve probably heard it in a leadership meeting. Or muttered it to yourself after another fruitless attempt at trolling for resumes on Indeed and LinkedIn. The truth? Hiring in today’s legal market feels like trying to find a unicorn in a thunderstorm. The great ones aren’t applying. The good ones ghost you. The ones who do come through the door often aren’t a fit. And the question law firms keep asking is: “Where are all the great candidates?” But maybe that’s not the right question. Maybe the better question is: “Why would a great candidate choose us?” Hiring Is a Marketing Problem For years, law firms have treated hiring like a back-office function. Put out a job post. Wait for resumes. Complain about the talent pool. Rinse and repeat. But here’s the wake-up call: The hiring market isn’t an HR issue, it’s a marketing issue. You’re not just offering a job. You’re making a promise. A story. A future. And in 2025, the best talent isn’t looking for just a paycheck. They’re looking for purpose. Your Future Hires Are Watching You Just Like Your Future Clients Are Today’s law students and young lawyers are some of the most values-driven professionals the industry has ever seen. They care about more than salary. They care about: Work-life balance (and not just in the brochure) Whether you actually support mental health DEI efforts that go beyond hashtags Whether your firm aligns with their personal values They’re not just Googling your Glassdoor reviews. They’re scrolling your Instagram. Watching your TikToks. Reading your “About Us” page with the same scrutiny you apply to a closing argument. They’re asking: “Would I be proud to work here?” If the answer isn’t clear, or worse, if it’s no, they’re moving on. If You Want Better Talent, Build a Better Brand The firms that are winning the war for talent have figured it out: Your employer brand is just as important as your client-facing brand. You wouldn’t launch a new client service without a clear value proposition, a compelling story, and a consistent message. So why would you hire that way? The same marketing principles that attract clients should be used to attract top-tier talent: Positioning— What makes your firm different from every other mid-size litigation shop? Messaging— Are you telling the story of who you are and why it matters? Social proof— Are your current employees sharing why they love working for you? Clarity— Do your job descriptions sound like human conversations or legalese soup? Values Are the New Differentiator Here’s the part most firms miss: Culture isn’t ping-pong tables or free coffee. It’s what you believe. And today’s hires want to work for a firm that stands for something. That might be: A commitment to justice reform Being trauma-informed in client interactions Supporting working parents Prioritizing mentorship and growth Whatever it is, you need to say it out loud and often. And not just on your Careers page. On your LinkedIn. In interviews. At law school recruiting events. In every story you tell. Because when your values are clear, two things happen: The right people are drawn to you. The wrong people screen themselves out. That’s what strong branding does. “But We’re Not That Interesting…” Yes, you are. Every law firm has a story. A heartbeat. A reason it was started in the first place. The problem is, most firms forget to tell it. They default to vague descriptions like “dedicated to excellence” or “client-centered advocacy”. Phrases that mean nothing and inspire no one. You don’t need to be flashy. You just need to be real. Tell the story of why your founders walked away from BigLaw. Share your vision for building a practice that values family. Highlight the alumni of your summer associate program who’ve gone on to do amazing things. That’s what resonates. Make Marketing a Hiring Tool If you want to attract aligned, invested, high-performing team members, your marketing should speak to them before you ever post the job. Here’s how to start: Audit your online presence. Would you want to work at your firm based on what’s on your website and social media? If not, fix it. Feature your people. Showcase associate wins. Highlight team culture. Turn your people into your best recruiters. Tell real stories. What’s it actually like to work at your firm? What do you believe in? What are you building together? Lead with values. Define your core values and weave them into your marketing, onboarding, and decision-making. Think like a recruiter. Your job posts should sound like invitations, not requisitions. Sell the opportunity, not just the requirements. Final Thoughts: People Don’t Want Perfect, They Want Purpose The firms that attract the best talent in the next 5 years won’t be the ones with the fanciest perks or the biggest budgets. They’ll be the ones who mean it. Who stand for something. Who show up consistently. Who use marketing not just to grow revenue, but to grow community. So, if you’re struggling to hire: stop tweaking your Indeed ad. Start telling a better story. Because in a world full of noise, the firms that win will be the ones that are clear, aligned, and unapologetically themselves. Want a team that actually wants to work for you? Start marketing like it.

Third party litigation funding is the process where third party funders provide money to a plaintiff or to plaintiff’s counsel in exchange for a cut of the proceeds resulting from the underlying litigation or settlement. Until recently, outside funding for litigation was prohibited by the concepts of “maintenance” and “champerty”. The erosion of these common law concepts first began in Australia, then moved to the United Kingdom, before entering the U.S. and changing the litigation landscape. Over the last fifteen years, litigation funding in the U.S. has expanded from a prohibited practice to a $15 billion market, and one that is expected to grow to over $25 billion by 2030. In patent litigation, conservative estimates presume funding undergirds about 30% of all patent litigation. Litigation funding shifts the financial risks of lawsuits away from firms and individual plaintiffs to outsiders willing and able to shoulder that risk. In contrast to the traditional contingency fee model, litigation funding shifts the risk from the firm to the funders. The financial model of litigation funders allows the risk-shifting. Such investments in litigation are non-recourse loans, meaning that whether the suits are won or lost, the lawyers get paid. In addition, litigation funding may help smaller entities and individuals compete with corporations. Without capital from funders, small businesses and even some non-practicing entities would not be able to take their cases to court because they could not compete against a large corporations’ legal departments, outside counsel, and sizeable budgets. Here, funding gives some patent holders a fighting chance. Litigation funding also benefits patent holders by monetizing their claims up front. For example, an influx of capital from a funder can sustain a small startup, help launch its technology, and defend its interests. Without funding, smaller and startup businesses would need to take on all the risks and costs of litigation, and if they won—whether at trial or by settlement—they would have to wait for the case’s resolution to receive any money. Further, there is an argument that litigation funding increases access to justice. When a smaller entity holds an otherwise valuable patent, but one that it cannot litigate due to financial constraints, litigation funding allows the smaller entities access to litigation. Without funding, a small-time patent holder may have no other recourse or access to justice. Nonetheless, litigation funding is not without criticism. For example, funders may exercise significant control over litigation. This could arise from the terms of the agreement. Or the control may come from calculated decisions about where to file to maximize likely return, or determining the parameters of settlements. Or a funder may determine the parameters of settlements. This type of influence can interfere with the professional independence of lawyers and their loyalty to clients. In a similar vein, funding may contravene the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which are designed to ensure that lawyers act in the best interest of their clients. For example, Model Rule 1.2(a) says, “[a] lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter.” But, in some funding agreements, provisions allow funders to make decisions about whether and when to settle. And, unlike attorneys, funders do not owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and may not be acting in their best interest. As another example, Model Rule 5.4 prohibits fee-splitting between a lawyer and a non-lawyer, except under some outlined exceptions. However, some funding agreements violate Rule 5.4’s fee-splitting provision because funders are paid a percentage of the legal fees secured by the plaintiff’s attorney. Another criticism of litigation funding is that it allows outsiders to use courtrooms as a trading floor. Such funding can incentivize the filing of non-meritorious litigation. Litigation is expensive, so most businesses avoid it. Indeed, businesses often settle cases rather than engage in protracted and costly litigation, regardless of whether the claims are legitimate. Since litigation funding shifts the risk from plaintiffs to outsiders, there is less risk associated with non-meritorious claims. Lastly, third party funding in patent suits may pose a threat to national security where the identities of funders are hidden. The fear is that this secrecy could allow foreign adversaries to benefit by influencing the American legal system, devaluing existing patents, interfering with innovation, gaining access to sensitive information, including military technology, evading sanctions, or otherwise harming U.S. interests. With these national security concerns in mind, about two years ago fourteen state attorneys general signed a letter expressing their concerns. As Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, current U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Senator John Kennedy (when he was Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Federal Courts) have also echoed these concerns. In Washington, U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, is leading the charge to regulate. The related hearing, “The U.S. Intellectual Property System and the Impact of Litigation Financed by Third-Party Investors and Foreign Entities,” examined IP litigation financed by third party investors and foreign entities, including the impact of those developments on the U.S. IP system and U.S. national security. Following the hearing, Rep. Issa released the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2024, which requires the disclosure of any third-party that has a right to receive any payment contingent on the outcome of the civil action and require the agreement creating the right to receive payment be produced to the court and named parties. It would not, however, require disclosure of any individuals or entities who do not receive payouts from funds obtained in settlements or court judgments. The Act further includes exceptions for funders who receive payments solely for the purposes of reimbursement or loan repayment. Ultimately, the Act would require transparency and the disclosure of the third-party funders’ involvement to ensure the court and parties are aware of the agreement. In sum, litigation funding may improve access to justice to smaller entities, shifts the risk from lawyers and or clients to others, and keeps many lawyers employed. On the other hand, litigation funding may threaten the professional independence of lawyers, contravene the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, decrease transparency in the legal system, and pose national security risks. Regardless, as a $15 billion industry occurring in about 30% of patent infringement suits, it is a behemoth that has invited much criticism and some government response.