Practice Management

The Wu-Tang Clan taught us that “cash rules everything around me.” And nowhere is this truer than in law firms. I have learned a lot about people over the last two years. I have been through a lot. I have been betrayed by people I trusted. And I have been uplifted by people who possess a genuine moral compass and an authentic sense of values. Separating the posers from the real ones has been an unexpected gift in a long battle. Here is what I have learned: It is dangerous to come between people and money. Most people will choose money every single time. This is not cynicism. This is observation. And if you want to understand why law firms struggle with culture, why toxic partners survive for decades, why meaningful reform feels impossible, you need to understand this fundamental truth about human nature and economic incentives. The Economics of Looking Away Law firms are money-making machines. This is not a criticism. It is simply a fact. Partners eat what they kill. Compensation depends on origination credits, billable hours, and business development. Every relationship has a dollar sign attached to it. This creates a problem when values and profit collide. Good people will excuse awful behavior if they think addressing it will cost them money or the opportunity to make money. They won’t endorse the behavior. They will simply look the other way. I have watched this happen repeatedly. Sexual harassment. Bullying. Substance abuse. Partners who treat associates like disposable labor. Rainmakers who create hostile work environments. The pattern is always the same. People know. People see. People stay quiet. Why? Because that partner brings in three million dollars a year. Because that practice group generates twenty percent of the firm’s revenue. Because confronting the problem means risking the relationship and risking the money. This is how monsters survive in professional environments. Harvey Weinstein operated for decades. Diddy operated for decades. Otherwise, decent people knew something was wrong and said nothing. Fear played a role. But so did greed. Speaking up meant risking access. Risking opportunity. Risking the next deal. Law firms operate on the same dynamics, just at a smaller scale and with lower stakes. The partner who screams at associates? Everyone knows. The partner who makes inappropriate comments? Everyone knows. The partner who takes credit for other people’s work? Everyone knows. And everyone stays quiet because the math is simple. Confrontation equals risk. Silence equals continued compensation. The Convenient Lie This dynamic makes it easy for people to believe lies that serve their interests. When someone challenges a powerful person, the firm faces a choice. Investigate genuinely and risk losing a rainmaker or accept a convenient narrative that protects the revenue stream. I have watched otherwise intelligent people embrace obvious falsehoods because the truth was expensive. Liars understand this. They craft narratives designed for a receptive audience. An audience that wants to believe. An audience that has financial incentives to believe. This is not stupidity. It is motivated reasoning. People are remarkably good at convincing themselves that what benefits them financially is also what is true and right. The partner accused of harassment? There must be another explanation. The associate who complained? Probably a performance issue. The pattern of behavior spanning years and multiple victims? Coincidence. Convenient lies require cooperative believers. Law firms are full of them. What Values Actually Mean Here is what I have learned about values: They are what you do when it is inconvenient and does not maximize profit. Anyone can have values when values cost nothing. Anyone can stand for integrity when integrity is easy. The test comes when standing for something means losing something. Most people fail this test. They will profess values up to and until those values cost them money. Then the rationalizations begin. Then the exceptions emerge. Then the principles that seemed so firm suddenly become flexible. I am not saying this to condemn anyone. I am saying this because understanding it is essential to understanding how law firms actually work. When a firm says it values diversity but promotes the same demographic year after year, what does it actually value? When a firm says it values work-life balance but rewards partners who bill 2400 hours, what does it actually value? When a firm says it values respect but tolerates a partner who demeans staff, what does it actually value? The answer is always the same. Firms value what they pay for. Everything else is marketing. The Danger of Speaking Truth Telling the truth is rarely convenient. Speaking up that something is wrong is only safe when the wrongdoer is weak. If they are in power, you are in trouble. I have lived this. Speaking truth to power in a law firm environment is career-threatening behavior. The person who raises concerns becomes the problem. The whistleblower becomes the troublemaker. The truth-teller becomes the one who lacks judgment. This is not an accident. It is a feature of the system. Power protects itself by punishing those who challenge it. And in law firms, power is measured in dollars. The associate who reports a partner’s misconduct faces retaliation. The partner who challenges another partner’s behavior faces political consequences. The staff member who refuses to participate in something unethical faces termination. Meanwhile, the person with power faces nothing. Because they generate revenue. Because they have relationships. Because removing them costs money. This creates a brutal calculus for anyone with a conscience. Speak up and risk everything. Stay quiet and keep your career intact. Most people choose their careers. I do not blame them. I understand the choice even when I disagree with it. Control Mechanisms Abusive systems require control mechanisms. Law firms have plenty. Compensation structures are control mechanisms. When your income depends on the discretion of a small group of people, you learn quickly not to challenge that group. Origination credits are control mechanisms. When credit for business can be allocated or taken away based on relationships, you learn to maintain relationships even with people who behave badly. Awards and recognition are control mechanisms. Who gets nominated? Who gets celebrated? These decisions signal what the firm actually values and who holds power. Partnership decisions are the ultimate control mechanism. Years of work leading to a single vote by people whose favor you need. How likely are you to rock the boat during that process? These mechanisms are not inherently evil. But they create environments where abuse can flourish. Where silence becomes rational. Where going along becomes safer than speaking up. The Silence That Enables Abuse depends on silence. The silence of victims, yes. But more importantly, the silence of bystanders. There is a quote often attributed to Dante, though the sourcing is disputed: “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Whether Dante said it or not, the sentiment is true. Neutrality in the face of wrongdoing is not neutral. It is support for the wrongdoer. Every person who sees something wrong and says nothing makes it easier for that wrong to continue. Law firms are full of neutral people. People who know something is wrong. People who have the standing to speak up. People who choose not to because the personal cost is too high. I have been one of those people. I have seen things and said nothing because the timing was not right. Because I needed something from someone. Because I was afraid. I am not proud of it. But I have also been the person who spoke up. Who challenged power. Who refused to go along. And I have paid for it. Every single time. The Leadership Problem Here is the hard truth that nobody wants to acknowledge: All problems in a law firm are leadership problems. Toxic partners exist because leadership allows them to exist. Bad culture persists because leadership permits it to persist. Values get compromised because leadership compromises them. When a firm tolerates behavior that contradicts its stated values, that is a leadership decision. When a firm protects a rainmaker at the expense of everyone else, that is a leadership decision. When a firm chooses revenue over integrity, that is a leadership decision. Healthy law firms are those with values-driven leadership. Leaders who make hard decisions. Leaders who remove toxic people even when it costs money. Leaders who demonstrate through action that certain behaviors are unacceptable regardless of how much business someone brings in. These firms exist. They are rare. They are almost always led by people who have decided that some things matter more than maximizing profit. Evil Is Real I have come to believe that evil exists in the world. Not cartoon evil. Not mustache-twirling villainy. Ordinary evil. The evil of people who do harm because they can. Because it benefits them. Because nobody stops them. Evil banks on greed. Evil banks on self-interest. Evil banks on weak people who will not stand in its way. Law firms are not uniquely evil places. But they are places where the incentives align in ways that let bad actors thrive. Where the structures protect power. Where the economics reward silence. If you work in a law firm, you will eventually face a moment where your values and your interests conflict. You will have to decide who you actually are. Most people discover they are weaker than they thought. Some people discover they are stronger. Either way, you will learn something about yourself. I have learned a lot about myself over the last two years. I have learned what I will tolerate and what I will not. I have learned what I will sacrifice to maintain my integrity. I have learned who my real friends are. And I have learned that speaking truth in law firms is dangerous business. It remains worth doing anyway. Not because it will be rewarded. Not because it will be easy. But because some things matter more than money. The Wu-Tang Clan was right. Cash rules everything around us. But it does not have to rule us.

Do you know how effective this marketing tactic is? How much profit (or loss) is attributed to a specific marketing expense—what’s my ROI? It’s a question we get asked every day. Understanding the return on your investment (ROI) can be tricky. Especially in professional services, most clients’ hiring decisions are based on a combination of factors, so it can be difficult to attribute a new client to one specific marketing line item. Often a potential client will become aware of your services in multiple ways, frequently through a referral from a trusted friend or business associate, perhaps building a relationship with you over time and eventually hiring you when an immediate need presents itself. Firms want to understand the best places to spend limited marketing dollars. For very large firms, it may make sense to put sophisticated tracking mechanisms into place for determining the relative contributions of various marketing tactics to the client development process. For smaller shops, a few basic and manageable measures may prove helpful enough without creating an undue burden. The following are a few guiding thoughts. Begin With the End in Mind At the start of each marketing campaign or activity, ask yourself what success will look like. What is the business driver for your campaign? Are you trying to drive revenue for a specific type of work? Increase traffic to your website? Do you need to recruit talented associates? Are you supporting a succession plan to transfer firm ownership to the next generation of leaders? How we measure marketing and public relations results has evolved over the years. As digital platforms offer increasingly sophisticated tracking insights, there are new data points and ways to measure online results. But “real world” activities require a more human touch. In any case, you don’t have to measure everything possible to gain useful insights into the effectiveness of your marketing spend. Instead, start with a few manageable objectives that support your overall business goals and build on them over time. Define Your Goals If your goal is to increase traffic to your website, think through the why, the how, and, most importantly, the where. Is your inbound traffic visiting the right pages of your site to take the next step in their journey with you? Set up key event goals to track in Google Analytics 4 (which has replaced Universal Analytics). In addition to looking at simple site visits, track where and how long people spend time on your site. Did they follow a call to action (CTA), such as downloading information, filling out a form, or contacting the firm? If you invest in a conference exhibit booth, plan ways to track the number (and quality) of attendee contacts made during the event. Were you able to convert these people into LinkedIn connections, newsletter subscribers, follow-up calls, or other measurable post-event activities? A firm can look at successful results through many different lenses, each as one stepping stone to building practice success. Tracking Whatever your ultimate goal, you’ll need a way to track results. It’s helpful to start with a baseline prior to initiating your activity. For example, if your goal is to gain more clients in a particular practice, you’ll need to know how many matters you have in that area and where your clients have come from historically. If you haven’t been tracking referral sources in the past, do the best you can to gather the information and then begin a system for tracking this going forward. The most common way would be to have a “Referred by” field or two associated with your intake process. Ask every potential client how they found you, even if they don’t end up hiring you. You’ll want a way to generate reports based on this information, whether as part of an accounting system, a contact relationship management platform (CRM) or a simple Excel spreadsheet. Reviewing your referred-by information at regular intervals, you can attach revenues generated (or projected) on those specific matters to determine the ROI of the marketing you do. Keep in mind, that the client may tell you that their accountant referred you, but you’ll want to try to understand how that accountant met you in the first place. Perhaps it was because you spoke at an accounting industry event or met them through a networking forum. Those insights will help you to identify the ROI of your various activities. Depending on the volume of data you will need to digest, track, and report, it may be beneficial to standardize some information. For example, you might want to have a set of general categories on which you can sort and filter, such as “Print Ads,” “Organic Internet Search,” and “Conferences,” as well as a freeform field for additional information, such as the name and firm name of a specific referral source or the name and year of the conference or advertising campaign. Memories will fade, so the more specific you are now, the better your future decision-making will be. Quantity vs. Quality Many traditional (and even current digital) sales funnel principles are developed from a consumer products (and services) perspective. This model assumes that casting a very wide net (i.e., being in front of a high volume of eyeballs) will equate to higher sales. For some aspects of your marketing, this may offer some useful guidance. Especially if you run a practice that relies on reaching clients who are likely to use your services only once, such as personal injury or consumer bankruptcy. In these cases, you can look at the cost of, for example, a pay-per-click (PPC) campaign and track how many qualified leads contact your office based on that campaign. Then, determine how many of those contacts convert into actual clients. Of course, there is a lot that happens between those two events, so make sure you are not making false assumptions about effectiveness. For example, if many people contact your office based on an advertisement, but you don’t respond to the majority of them until three days after initial contact, most of those people probably won’t become clients. In that case, the activity generated from your marketing spend might be high (demonstrating a high ROI for driving clients to the firm), but your lack of follow-through may be crushing your conversion rate (creating a low ROI when measuring the number of actual new clients gained). Many legal practices and B2B services have long sales cycles. These firms may need to spend more dollars (and time) on long-tail initiatives that deepen relationships with key referral sources or concentrate on building impressive credentials for their attorneys showcasing niche expertise. While it is rare that publishing a single article in an industry trade publication will cause the phone to ring with a new client, having that publication listed on an attorney’s bio will likely be an influencing factor in their assessment of the attorney’s expertise. These types of activities will be harder to attribute individually to a specific client acquisition. However, they are worthwhile as contributing factors, making their cumulative effect very powerful. In these cases, the most important measure may not be the number of reader impressions with potential clients or referral sources, but rather ensuring that the activities are targeted to engage the right specific people with hiring or influencing authority—typically a small subset of individuals. Measuring What Matters There are nearly limitless metrics you can use to determine whether a marketing campaign is effectively supporting your goals. Here are a few more ways to think about the question of ROI. If the firm is expanding into a new geography, is your marketing generating new leads originating from that location? Are website visitors engaging with content that is specifically relevant to that location? If the firm places digital ads with a publication, have you set them up with tracking links so you can see the number of visitors that come to your website directly by clicking on that ad? Are you testing and tracking different versions to continuously improve on your results? If you want to showcase niche expertise, have you increased the volume of content published on the topic (via blogs, article placements, podcast appearances, videos or other media)? Are you leveraging that content across multiple platforms? How are your audiences engaging with that content? Final Thoughts Be patient. Remember that marketing requires consistency. Just because you become bored with your campaign and are ready to move on to the next shiny marketing object doesn’t mean that you’ve even scratched the surface of market penetration. Some say that it takes seven impressions before your audience will consciously process your advertising message. Of course, having the right solution communicated to a potential client exactly when they need that particular service is the secret sauce. Since you rarely know when that is going to be, having a consistent presence is the key. The value of any marketing activity is ultimately how well it helps support your business goals. You don’t have to address all of the aspects discussed above with a complete overhaul of your marketing program, especially if you are a small team or managing a limited budget (and let’s be honest, who isn’t?). Rather, identify one goal, build a targeted campaign around that, and measure it (ideally, you’ll have a baseline based on historical data). Try new things, measure, analyze, and adjust. If you aren’t seeing the needle move after a reasonable period, try something different. The better you focus your marketing and business development activities in support of specific firm goals, the more you will realize a positive return on your marketing investments. 

It’s the question keeping legal marketers up at night: “With the rise of AI-powered search, is traditional SEO still worth the investment?” If you’ve been fielding questions from stakeholders asking for Artificial Intelligence Optimization (AIO) or wondering why your firm isn’t pivoting its entire strategy to optimize for ChatGPT, you’re not alone. The search landscape is shifting, and Google’s introduction of AI Overviews has created a climate of uncertainty. However, the panic about the “death of SEO” is largely overstated. Google’s Search Liaison, Danny Sullivan, recently addressed these concerns. His message was clear: You do not need to choose between traditional SEO and AI optimization. In fact, trying to separate them could be a costly mistake for your firm. The “New Stuff” is Built on the “Old Stuff” When tools like Google’s AI Mode and AI Overviews arrive on the scene, the instinct is to demand a specific strategy for those platforms. Sullivan acknowledged that SEO professionals are in a tough spot when stakeholders demand “the new stuff.” However, he warns against inventing something entirely new merely out of appeasement. Instead, Sullivan explained that the best way to succeed with AI Overviews is to continue executing the fundamental SEO practices that have always worked. He advised telling stakeholders, “These are continuing to be the things that are going to make you successful in the long-term… I’m keeping an eye on it, but right now, the best advice I can tell you when it comes to how we’re going to be successful with our AEO is that we continue on doing the stuff that we’ve been doing because that is what it’s built on.” The “fancy new thing” is built upon the foundation of the “same old thing.” Google’s AI is trained to look for high-quality, helpful, and authoritative content, the exact same metrics traditional SEO has prioritized for years. Abandoning SEO Won’t Help Your Firm’s ROI There is a growing trend of “AI Optimization” services suggesting that businesses should tailor their content specifically to rank in chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, or Perplexity. This often involves creating listicles or tweaking keyword phrases in ways that feel spammy, tactics that reputable SEOs abandoned nearly two decades ago. Before you pivot your budget to chase chatbot visibility, you must look at the numbers. The search traffic share for these standalone AI chatbots is a fraction of a percent. Estimates place ChatGPT’s search market share between 0.2% and 0.5%, with competitors like Claude registering close to zero. Compare this to Google and Bing, which still command the vast majority of global search traffic. From a Return on Investment (ROI) perspective, prioritizing AEO (Answer Engine Optimization) or GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) over traditional search makes zero sense. You would be optimizing for a microscopic segment of the audience while neglecting the platform where your actual customers are searching. The Risks of Over-Complication Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode are different from standalone chatbots, but the underlying machinery remains the same. Sullivan confirmed that the ranking systems powering these AI interfaces are still based on Google’s classic search algorithms. If you start bifurcating your strategy by creating one type of content for “Search” and another for “AI,” you risk overcomplicating your marketing operations. Sullivan warned that dramatic shifts in strategy to chase AI rankings often lead to confusion rather than success, “The more that you dramatically shift things around, and start doing something completely different… the more that you may be making things far more complicated, not necessarily successful in the long term.” Simple, high-quality content remains the gold standard. If you muddy the waters with complex, divergent strategies, you may dilute your overall authority. The Evolution of Technical SEO If content is king, what happens to the technical side of SEO?  During the same discussion, Google’s John Mueller offered an interesting perspective on the evolution of technical SEO. In the early days of the internet, simply making a site accessible to a crawler required significant technical heavy lifting. Today, modern Content Management Systems (CMS) have changed the game. Mueller pointed out that platforms like WordPress, Wix, and Squarespace now handle the majority of technical SEO requirements “out of the box.” This doesn’t mean technical SEO is dead; complex sites still require expert architectural management. But for many businesses, the barrier to entry has lowered. Sullivan agreed, noting that this shift is positive. It allows marketers and business owners to stop stressing over backend code and focus on what truly matters: the content. Sullivan notes, “I don’t even want to think about this SEO stuff anymore. I’m just getting back into the joy of writing blogs … That’s what we want you to do. That’s where we think you’re going to find your most success.” By letting the CMS handle the technical baseline, your team can dedicate its resources to creating the kind of deep, expert-driven content that feeds both the traditional search engine and the AI Overview. How SEO and AIO Work Together The verdict is clear: SEO and AIO are not enemies. They are partners. Optimizing for traditional search is, by definition, optimizing for AI Overviews. The AI needs a source of truth. It needs clear, structured, and authoritative data to generate its answers. If your website provides that through solid SEO practices, you are positioning yourself to win in both arenas So, what does a robust SEO/AIO strategy look like? Stick to E-E-A-T: Google’s criteria for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness apply to AI just as much as traditional links. Ensure your content is written by experts. Provide Comprehensive Answers: Platforms like AI Overviews leverage “query fan-out” to break down single, complex queries into multiple, specific sub-queries. When writing about a topic, aim to be as comprehensive as possible. For example, if you’re working on a blog about “divorce” in a particular state, be sure to cover all the angles, from child custody and asset division to alimony and mediation vs. litigation. Focus on Readability: If a human struggles to read your content, an AI likely will too. Use clear sentence structure, avoid legalese, and use headings and bullet points to ensure scanability. Don’t Chase Algorithms: Algorithms change daily. If you prioritize writing for the human user, you are future-proofing your content against whatever update comes next. SEO/AIO For Law Firms: A New Visibility Paradigm The arrival of AI in search is a significant technological shift, but it does not require a complete reinvention of your marketing wheel. As Danny Sullivan advises, the “fancy new thing” is rarely as sustainable as the foundational practices that built it. The path forward is one of integration, not separation. You don’t need to view AI Overviews as a separate channel that requires a new budget and an entirely new strategy. Instead, see it as the evolution of search, one that rewards the same high-quality, expert-driven content you should already be producing. Focus on your audience. Answer their questions. Demonstrate your expertise. If you do that, the algorithms, human-coded or AI-powered, will follow.

How much a law firm should pay an associate attorney is an age-old question that many law firms consider. Many law firms debate this question, making it difficult for them to develop a workable formula that works within their budget. Law firms often gravitate to one of two extremes. One extreme is that law firms overpay associates to lure them to work for their firm. However, if a law firm overpays for talent, the law firm owner often makes no money themselves. It may also be challenging to meet other firm financial obligations if the payroll is too high. Law firms that pay associates too much money ultimately get overextended, have to let employees go, and implode. To a lesser extent, some law firms may not offer enough in salary. If that is the case, it is hard to attract top talent to the law firm. When that occurs, it is hard for a law firm to hire lawyers. Law firms do need to consider average salary data to determine a reasonable pay range. Yet, the salary data is not the be-all and end-all. The numbers still have to work financially, based on the law firm’s budget and forecasts. What Is a Reasonable Way to Pay Associate Attorneys? Every law firm is a little different. Depending on the practice area, how a law firm pays associates can change. However, many prognosticators argue that a law firm associate should receive about one-third of the revenue generated by them. Many would refer to this system as the “old rule of thirds” for paying lawyers. Under this system, one-third goes to the lawyer, one-third to overhead, and one-third to the law firm. Thus, if a lawyer brings in $300,000 in actual revenue, many would argue the lawyer should make a base salary of about $100,000 per year. Of course, the analysis gets complicated when the lawyer did not bring any of the business into the law firm, but instead, all their revenue comes from cases generated by the law firm’s marketing efforts, given that marketing is often expensive. With increasing overhead costs, including rising health care costs, the formula can also be more complex. Collection rates can muddy the water, too. If a lawyer bills $300,000 in billable hours per year but collects only $200,000 of that amount, the associate would not receive $100,000 under the rule of thirds. Instead, to the chagrin of many associate attorneys, they would receive a salary of $66,666.66. One lawyer argues today that the new norm for paying an associate is 20 percent of the revenue they generate for the law firm. The rationale for the 20 percent argument is challenging economic conditions and rising benefit costs, including health care costs. Such a position also makes sense when considering inflationary factors, including the cost of advertising to bring in potential clients when an associate does not have their own book of business. While many law firm associates may not like hearing that their base salary should be somewhere between 20 and 33 percent of the revenue they can reasonably be expected to earn, the reality is that law firm owners would be wise to heed this guidance. If they pay more than this amount to attract or retain talent, they will likely put themselves and their firm in financial trouble. Many law firms specifically get themselves into trouble by offering a base salary that is not within the 20 to 33 percent range of the revenue the lawyer can reasonably generate. Instead, many law firms set salary ranges solely on online salary data or what it takes to hire lawyers away from their competitors. When that happens, many law firm owners become frustrated when their lawyers do not meet their billable-hour or revenue requirements. They also suffer financially, and the firm’s viability can be jeopardized. Thus, law firm owners need to follow the metrics of their lawyers and law firm to ensure that the salaries they are paying make financial sense. What About Incentives on Top of Base Salary? Many law firm owners also wonder whether incentives, in addition to the base salary, will motivate lawyers to meet their productivity metrics. Paying lawyers incentives probably makes sense for many law firms. By doing so, lawyers have an incentive to exceed their goals because they will make extra money. Law firms can set up incentives in many different ways. A law firm may: Pay a set discretionary bonus to an associate lawyer who met the billable hour and accounts receivable goals; Pay lawyers a discretionary bonus if they bring in a case outside of the law firm’s marketing efforts; and/or Come up with a formula-driven bonus system that pays associates a portion of any profit they make for the firm, although complicated formulas can lead to computation disputes with associates. Truth be told, many associate attorneys are not impressed by incentive-based pay. Most are merely looking for guaranteed money—and they will jump ship if a competitor offers more. In their defense, the desire to make the highest guaranteed salary possible makes sense when you consider that many lawyers are coming out of law school with significant student loan debt. It is also challenging to buy a home and have a family in this day and age with rising prices. Yet what many associate attorneys fail to realize is that, if they ever become partners, there is no guaranteed salary. If the firm is not making money, they do not get paid. In the end, law firms that want to be fiscally responsible need to follow the guidance above. Suppose an associate intends to depart for a higher guaranteed salary. If they are asking for more than 20-33% of the revenue they actually generate, most law firms should let them go. While it is often sad when an associate departs, the law firm is usually better off not to over-extend to keep them. If they do it often, the firm can struggle to succeed. The law firm should instead hire another lawyer with a reasonable salary expectation and move forward.

A firm’s client base should be a crystal-clear reflection of its strategy. Here’s how leadership can help ensure that business development professionals bring that part of law firm strategy to life. Setting the Stage: Strategy and the Client Base of the Future In a previous post, we explored how even the busiest firm leaders can personally contribute to sales success. This follow-on focuses on one small but powerful—and too often overlooked—step in the strategic planning process: targeting. When a firm plans for its next three to five years, it envisions its future market positioning, geographic footprint, brand, buyer awareness, services, people, and other key factors. Even if only implicitly, the strategy also illuminates the client base of the future. Most new law firm strategies define an ideal client profile. That’s a start, but as Tony Robbins said, “You can’t hit a target if you don’t know what it is.” A profile alone is too abstract to drive consistent action. What’s needed is a specific, strategy-driven target list—by name—of clients to retain and nurture, and prospects to pursue. The questions, then, are: Which current clients deserve continued investment, and which have run their course? Which prospective clients align with the firm’s future direction and need to experience direct and energetic sales efforts? The Leadership Imperative Today’s client development teams, now equipped with sophisticated tools, including generative AI, can generate remarkably precise target lists. But without visible and ongoing leadership sponsorship, those lists rarely take hold. Leaders are well-advised to make clear that targeting is a strategic, sanctioned, monitored, and rewarded activity. Otherwise, even the best-intentioned efforts will fade into “business as usual,” and strategic plans will gather dust on a metaphorical shelf. Two contrasting examples illustrate the points made in this blog post: The cautionary tale. A mid-sized firm we advised generated a strategy to become a leading advisor to middle-market businesses across all the firm’s limited geographies. With this guidance, the client development team built a list of 3,000 companies, identified key buyers, mapped relationships, and generated preliminary action plans. It was a promising approach, but leadership did little more than acknowledge the existence of a list. Without leaders reviewing, refining, endorsing, and enforcing accountability, enthusiasm waned. Within two years, the middle-market strategy had been replaced by the de facto goal of opportunistic expansion, including “growing globally.” The success story. A then-Big Six accounting firm embraced a strategy “to serve global companies globally” (my words). Leadership made it clear: “Your job is to serve or pursue Global 1000 clients. Other work is your choice, but we will not invest in it, and it will not drive recognition or compensation.” Within two years, the firm’s annual growth rate rose from single digits to 16%+, it expanded into previously unserved markets where its clients and targets operated, and its workforce expanded by an estimated 20%. What Firm Leaders Should Consider Doing Client development teams can deftly perform most of the back-office work required to develop great, strategically guided target lists. But to ensure that names on target lists become names on client lists, leadership might take some or all of the following actions: Publicly charter the effort. Empower client development leaders to craft and maintain target lists that reflect firm strategy. Know the lists. Be conversant with their composition and alignment with firm priorities. Communicate relentlessly. Reinforce who the firm serves now, who we will serve next, and how each lawyer’s work contributes. Monitor the pipeline. Track traction against target lists and step in when progress stalls. Provide resources and alignment. Support the effort through budget, technology, incentives, and lateral hiring. Recognize performance. Celebrate wins that reflect strategy and quietly correct those who are off course. Help lawyers and staff learn to say “no” to proposed off-strategy actions and investments. The Payoff When leadership and client development teams align around specific targets, the results are transformative. Accountability. Progress can be tracked, and success measured, against named targets. Clarity. Everyone knows the firm’s priorities and what’s expected of them. Focus. Effort and investment concentrate where they yield the highest return. Collaboration. Lawyers coordinate around shared priorities, enhancing the client experience. Efficiency. Time, attention, and resources flow toward what matters most. Cultural alignment. The firm speaks with one voice about growth and purpose. Why This Matters A firm’s client base should be a direct function of its strategy. When leadership sets clear boundaries and expectations, client development becomes not just a clerical exercise but a manifestation of strategic intent. Turning a strategy into a defined client base requires more than capable business developers; it requires leadership resolve. Ask yourself: Does everyone in your firm know exactly which clients define your future? If not, now is a propitious time to make that clear.

There’s a moment every ambitious founder eventually faces—one that separates the leaders who rise from seven figures into eight … and those who stall out despite their brilliance. I see it every week with the managing partners, founders, and high-achieving lawyers I coach. But the clearest example came recently, during a conversation I had in Berlin with a managing partner who runs a highly successful seven-figure firm. He’s sharp. Strategic. Respected. The exact profile of someone you expect to see at an international legal conference. Over lunch, he shared his plan to scale to eight figures—a smart move in his market. So, I asked him the most natural question in the world: “Who’s your coach?” He paused. Smiled. And said, confidently: “I don’t need a coach.” And in that instant, he revealed the most dangerous blind spot every high performer has—the myth of more. The Myth of More: When What Got You Here Stops Working High performers tend to trust the formula that rewarded them in the past: More effort More hours More control More personal execution More of you holding everything together This founder had built a seven-figure firm by being a world-class problem solver. That strength had served him extraordinarily well. But it had also quietly become a ceiling. Many founders mistakenly believe that the path to eight figures is simply a continuation of the path that got them to seven. They assume linear effort will keep creating exponential results. It won’t. At a certain point—often right around the seven-figure mark—the model collapses under its own weight. More hours begin to burn out the leader and the leadership team. More control creates bottlenecks instead of momentum. More involvement forces everything to route through a single person. The strengths that once produced success become liabilities. Eight Figures Is Not an Operational Challenge—It’s an Identity Shift Scaling to eight figures isn’t about optimizing your schedule or hiring more support staff. It requires something far more uncomfortable: It requires you to change. Not as a technician. Not as a lawyer. Not even as a CEO. You must evolve into something that many high-performing attorneys have never been taught to be: A leader of leaders. This requires a complete internal shift—from elite doer to builder of other elite doers. A doer controls and executes. A leader delegates and inspires. A doer solves problems. A leader asks better questions. The founder in Berlin had elevated himself into the CEO seat, but he was still operating like the most elite technician on the team. He was leading with the same instincts that once earned him success in the courtroom. And that’s why he was stuck. The Invisible Ceiling: The Belief You Don’t Know You Have Every founder carries a belief that helped them win early in their career. For many lawyers, the belief sounds like this: “If you want it done right, do it yourself.” That belief absolutely builds a seven-figure law firm. It absolutely destroys an eight-figure one. Because scaling requires you to let go. Let go of control. Let go of being the answer. Let go of being the bottleneck your entire team unconsciously depends on. But here’s the catch: You can’t see your own limiting beliefs. You’re standing inside the frame. You cannot read the ingredients on the cereal box from the inside. That’s why an invisible ceiling is so dangerous—it’s built from patterns you’ve repeated for decades, patterns that feel like strengths but function like restraints. Why You Cannot Break the Invisible Ceiling Alone Let me give you the blunt truth: There is no high-performing founder in the world who breaks through their invisible ceiling alone. Not because they lack intelligence. Not because they lack discipline. Not because they lack courage. But because no one in their life is positioned to tell them the unfiltered truth. Partners have their own political interests. Employees are influenced by power dynamics. Spouses want to protect you from discomfort. Friends want to support you, not challenge you. Only one person has no agenda other than your success: A coach. Someone who reflects the patterns you can’t see, asks the questions no one else asks, and challenges beliefs no one else would dare confront. This is why the founder in Berlin will not scale to eight figures until he stops trying to do it alone. And this is why my highest-performing clients scale faster than their peers—because they have a mirror, an accountability engine, and a strategic sparring partner all in one. Real-World Evidence: What Happens After the Identity Shift Let me make this real: A client of mine—also a seven-figure founder—was stuck. She had the team. She had the systems. She even had a leadership layer in place. But she still felt guilt about stepping back. She still believed she “needed to be in the weeds” to justify her value to the firm. She couldn’t imagine allowing her leaders to fail, even though failure is the only path to growth. Within six months of shifting from managing people to leading leaders: She worked fewer hours. Her firm’s revenue increased. Her leaders finally stepped into their full roles. She reclaimed her strategic headspace. The client experience improved. She became the CEO the business needed. She stopped being the operator and grew into the visionary. That is the identity shift required to go from seven figures to eight. The Question That Separates Leaders Who Scale From Leaders Who Stall If I could go back to that moment in Berlin, I still wouldn’t try to convince that founder he needed a coach. High performers shut down when you try to “fix” them. Instead, I’d ask him a simple question—the same one I’m going to ask you now: Are you willing to bet your eight-figure dream on the belief that you have zero blind spots? Sit with that. Now ask yourself a second question: What is the one belief that has always served you—but may now be the invisible ceiling holding you back? Every founder has one. The ones who scale are the ones brave enough to examine it. Your Next Level Requires a New You Scaling isn’t about doing more. It’s about becoming more: More aware. More intentional. More visionary. More willing to be challenged. More willing to see what you cannot see alone. The leaders who reach eight figures are never the ones who go alone. They’re the ones who choose to evolve.

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

As attorneys, we are trained to anticipate risk and protect our clients from uncertainty. Yet many of us fail to apply that same diligence to our own practices. Succession planning is not just a professional courtesy—it’s a legal and ethical necessity. A Cautionary Tale The sudden death of a law firm’s founder or managing partner can trigger a cascade of problems—especially when no succession plan exists. One real-world example involved a 30-attorney firm with multiple offices in the Mid-Atlantic. After the unexpected passing of its managing partner, the firm unraveled within a year. Without a designated successor or leadership structure, attorneys began leaving, clients lost confidence, and operations ground to a halt. Eventually, the remaining lawyers voted to close the firm. Solo practitioners are particularly vulnerable. Many work until they pass away, leaving family members or colleagues to sort out the aftermath. In sole proprietorships, the firm legally ceases to exist upon the owner’s death. Without a plan, client matters may be left unresolved, and the firm’s assets are liquidated to pay debts. Even partnerships and LLCs can face dissolution or legal disputes if succession provisions are missing. Whether through internal leadership development, merger strategies, or buy-sell agreements, law firms must prepare for the unexpected. Succession planning isn’t just about continuity, it’s about protecting clients, staff, and the legacy of the firm. Ethical Duties Require More Than Good Intentions California attorneys are bound by fiduciary duties of competence, communication, loyalty, and confidentiality. These duties don’t end when we retire, become incapacitated, or pass away. If we fail to plan for the transition or closure of our practice, we risk breaching these obligations and exposing our clients to harm. The California Rules of Professional Conduct—particularly Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.6 (Confidentiality), 1.15 (Safeguarding Client Property), and 1.17 (Sale of Law Practice)—set clear expectations for attorneys to act with diligence and care in managing their practices, even in transition. California’s Default Rules: Reactive and Risky If an attorney becomes incapacitated or dies without a succession plan, California law provides a framework—but it’s far from ideal. Under Business & Professions Code Sections 6180 and 6190, the Superior Court may assume jurisdiction over the law practice and appoint an attorney to wind it down. This process is designed to protect clients, but it can be slow, disruptive, and costly. The court-appointed attorney may not be familiar with the practice, the clients, or the systems in place. Without prior arrangements, even basic tasks—like accessing trust accounts, retrieving files, or notifying clients—can become complicated. Confidentiality concerns, malpractice risks, and administrative burdens often fall on grieving family members or unprepared colleagues. When There is No Plan If the court steps in, the appointed attorney or representative must: Secure the office, files, and trust accounts Notify clients, courts, and opposing counsel Review calendars for deadlines and court appearances Handle payroll, insurance, leases, and vendor contracts Reconcile trust accounts and finalize billing Safely destroy or return client files Notify the State Bar and other agencies of the closure This process can take months and may result in lost goodwill, client dissatisfaction, and even litigation. Proactive Planning: A Professional Imperative To avoid this scenario, I recommend the following steps: Designate a successor attorney: Choose someone you trust and formalize the arrangement in writing. This person should be prepared to step in immediately if needed. Create an emergency protocol: Include passwords, client lists, trust account details, and instructions for transferring or closing cases. Keep this updated and accessible. Consider selling or transferring your practice: If retirement or declining health is foreseeable, explore options for selling or transitioning your practice while you’re still able to oversee the process. Rule 1.17 governs the ethical sale of a law practice and requires client notification and consent. Communicate with clients and staff: Let them know you have a plan. This builds trust and ensures a smoother transition. Maintain insurance and records: Consider “tail” malpractice coverage and keep detailed records of client communications, billing, and file dispositions. Planning Is an Act of Compassion Succession planning is not just about protecting your business—it’s about protecting your clients, your colleagues, and your legacy. It’s a reflection of your professionalism and your compassion. 

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every activity under the heaven.” Many cases can benefit from early mediation. Parties often reject the notion of early mediation because they believe they need more information to resolve the dispute. In some cases, more information is necessary. In other cases, however, parties can assess litigation outcomes—based upon what they know, can reasonably anticipate and are willing to exchange in connection with the mediation—and meaningfully value the case without further litigation. Benefits of Early Mediation It can set the tone. Early mediation can help set a productive tone for the litigation. Early in my career, a senior attorney instructed me never to bring up settlement with the other side, believing it would be taken as a sign of weakness. When I later became responsible for cases, I began to raise settlement options early, expressing this premise: “We are on two parallel tracks, one to settle the case, one to try it.” And I proposed not letting one interfere with the other. It lets you learn about the case. Whether representing plaintiffs or defendants, busy litigation counsel tend to advance their preparation of a case for the next deadline. In some firms, lead counsel may rely upon others initially to analyze and prepare a case. In these instances, early mediation can be a catalyst to prompt a more comprehensive and candid consideration of a party’s claims or defenses. Exchanged briefs may clarify or provide additional information about the other side’s position. And early mediation offers an opportunity to learn about the opposing party and their counsel. It gives you a chance to settle the case. The benefits of an early resolution can be significant. Of course, ongoing litigation efforts cease and resources are preserved. Removing the stress (or at least the distraction) of a case allows parties to move on and turn their attention to other matters. An early mediation provides a forum for parties with intensely personal connections to a dispute to “have their day in court” sooner rather than later. For a defendant, risk becomes certain. And for a plaintiff, funds become available immediately. It provides information. Without settlement, one primary value of early mediation is information—about both the other side’s case and yours. Early mediation is an opportunity to develop your narrative and analyze how it will play out with a competing narrative. It requires a focus on damages and clarity about the range of potential recovery or risk. It may prompt you to revisit your expectations about case outcome (and thus case value)—whether because of new information or perhaps a mediator’s reaction to your case. When you properly prepare, early mediation should prompt parties and their counsel to consider litigation objectives—both in terms of what a litigant wants from the case and the associated costs (whether personal or financial). For a party funding their own legal expenses, a litigation budget delivered in advance of mediation will allow the party and their counsel to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of further litigation. Finally, early mediation—when approached with transparency, with reciprocity and in good faith—can create a path forward to revisit settlement as the litigation progresses. Downsides of Early Mediation It can be frustrating. A mediation that does not result in settlement often results in frustration or annoyance, usually directed at the other side: “This was just a waste of time and money.” “They just wanted free discovery.” “They didn’t come here in good faith.” Some frustration when early mediation leaves the parties far apart is certainly understandable. But a disappointing outcome does not negate the value of early mediation, especially when counsel work together to ensure the process is designed to be productive. It can be counterproductive. An early mediation can be proposed to send a message. It may be a defendant who wants to make sure the plaintiff personally understands the strength of the defense—not just plaintiff’s counsel. It may be a plaintiff who wants the defendant and their insurer to know the demand exceeds the deductible or self-insured retention. Or it may be a party that wants to show their resolve, perhaps refusing to negotiate or moving very little, and letting the other side know they intend to try the case in order to obtain a better settlement. In my experience, these tactics rarely have the intended effect; they instead just prolong the process of getting parties back to the table to focus on a reasonable settlement value. What Kinds of Cases Might Be Suited To Early Mediation? Those involving ongoing relationships. Early mediation can be crucial where preserving business or family relationships is a priority, despite the dispute. It can also be helpful to preserve a business operation or other asset that provides resources to parties, despite their conflict. Those involving pre-filing mediation requirements. Some contracts, such as real property leases or purchases, often include a pre-filing mediation requirement. Failing to fulfill a mediation requirement before heading to court can strip a party of the right to recover attorneys’ fees if they prevail. In other instances, breaching this contractual obligation can result in a motion to dismiss or stay pending mediation. Those for which early case valuation is possible. Early mediation is a good option in any case where the parties can assess litigation outcomes—based upon what they know, can reasonably anticipate and can obtain by right or in connection with the mediation. For instance, For early mediation in an intellectual property case, the defendant typically discloses revenue and units sold for accused products, together with financial statements covering the relevant period. For early mediation in a class or representative wage and hour case, the parties usually work from a common dataset covering the relevant period of time, including the number of current and former employees involved, the total number of workweeks (in a class action) or total number of wage statements (in a PAGA case) and where relevant company policies, samples of time records or wage statements, and time clock data. Could early mediation be effective for your case? Consider the following questions: What do you know about the potential recovery or risk in the case? What more would you like to know about the case to more confidently or accurately assess its value? Is the information available by right (e.g., Cal. Labor Code, 1198.5; Cal. Corp. Code, § 1601) or in a voluntary pre-mediation exchange between the parties? If not, what sources of information exist besides formal discovery or expert opinions? What range of uncertainty exists without that information? Can you meaningfully assess the case’s value by analyzing that range of uncertainty instead of waiting for certainty? Do you know enough about the case to explain your position, with at least some degree of detail, in an exchanged brief? Balanced against the cost of litigation, both personal and financial, clients and their lawyers should make sure they are not overlooking an opportunity to mediate early.