Practice Management

While preparing for an upcoming conference on client experience, I found myself reflecting on a simple but powerful idea: clients rarely judge attorneys solely on the legal advice they provide. More often, their perception of a firm is shaped by the countless interactions that occur throughout an engagement. We often think client satisfaction is earned in the big moments, such as winning a case, closing a transaction, or delivering a successful outcome. In reality, clients experience law firms moment by moment. Exceptional legal work remains a key part of every successful attorney-client relationship. However, legal expertise alone is rarely the differentiator. Most clients assume their attorney is competent. What they remember is how easy it was to work with the firm, how informed they felt throughout the process, and whether they felt valued as a client. A delayed callback, a confusing invoice, a rushed intake conversation, or an unanswered email can leave a lasting impression. On the other hand, clear communication, proactive updates, and thoughtful touchpoints can build trust even during difficult legal matters. What is Client Experience? Client experience encompasses every interaction a client has with a law firm, from first contact through completion of the matter. While many of these interactions involve the relationship attorney, many others involve the firm as a whole. The experience begins with intake and onboarding and continues through scheduling, communication, billing, status updates, technology and ultimately the closing of the engagement. Clients do not separate these experiences into departments. To them, it is all one firm and one experience. One challenge attorneys often face is daily work becoming routine and too familiar. They send engagement letters, review invoices, request documents, and manage deadlines every day. For many clients, however, this may be their first interaction with an attorney or one of the most stressful situations they have ever faced. What feels routine to you may feel significant to them. Why Client Experience Matters More Than Ever The legal market has changed dramatically. Clients have more choices than ever before, including alternative legal service providers and AI-powered tools for routine legal needs. Legal expertise remains essential, but it is no longer enough to distinguish a firm. Increasingly, the differentiator is the experience clients have while working with you. According to the Client Experience Summit, 68% of law firm clients report that experience matters as much as or more than outcomes. That statistic should get every attorney’s attention. It suggests that even exceptional legal work may not be enough if the client feels uninformed, ignored or frustrated throughout the process. A strong client experience fosters loyalty, generates referrals and strengthens a firm’s reputation. As technology continues to advance, the human elements of legal service, trust, empathy, communication and relationship-building, become even more valuable. Everyday Tasks That Can Move the Needle Because clients experience your firm moment by moment, the seemingly small interactions often have the greatest impact. Attorneys have countless opportunities each day to strengthen trust or unintentionally erode it. While we have identified that the client experience is the responsibility of the firm as a whole, we are going to focus on how you as the attorney can have an impact on a day-to-day basis. Sometimes the most routine activities are the ones that can have an unexpected impact, including: Picking up the phone. Most of our work now can be done over email, but if something is getting muddy in the back-and-forth or if it has been a while since you have spoken to the client on the phone, give them a call! In a world where everyone emails, this can make a difference and give you a chance to connect with your client in a different way. Timely responses. While not every question can be resolved right away, simply acknowledging an email can make a difference. When a client reaches out, send a response back to let them know you got the email and inform them of when they can expect a lengthier response. The same goes if they call—you can send them an email to let them know you received the message and you will call back during a specific timeframe in the future. Setting expectations. This is one that can often be handled poorly. Communicate early and often during a project and set realistic expectations. If there is going to be a delay—let them know! Transparency is key in building long-lasting trust. Case updates. In the same vein of communicating often, clients can sometimes interpret silence as inactivity. Provide regular updates to your client on case status and activities. Even if there is not a lot to report, checking in can help ease anxieties. You should try to avoid making clients reach out to you proactively because they are wondering what is going on. When Emotions are High Legal matters are often accompanied by stress, uncertainty, and high emotions. Whether a client is navigating litigation, a business dispute, an employment issue or a significant transaction, they are often seeking more than legal guidance. They are seeking confidence, clarity and reassurance. In those moments, the way we communicate can be just as important as the advice we provide. Clients may not remember every detail of a legal strategy or every document exchanged. They will remember whether they felt heard, informed and supported. A simple update, a quick phone call or a thoughtful explanation can significantly reduce anxiety and strengthen trust. When emotions are high, attorneys who provide both legal expertise and a positive client experience create relationships that clients remember long after the matter concludes. Do You Measure Client Experience? My hope is that this article has convinced you of the importance of client experience and given you ideas of small changes you can make to impact change and build greater loyalty. But I challenge you to take things a step further. The best way to create change is to start by benchmarking where you are so you can determine what change is needed. I recommend you examine your processes from client intake to completion of an engagement. And, similarly, that you conduct a client feedback survey after the fact. Some questions to consider: Before Engagement How easy is it to contact us? How quickly do we respond? Is intake simple and welcoming? During Representation Are clients receiving regular updates? Are we communicating clearly? Are expectations documented? After Matter Completion Do we seek feedback? Do we thank clients? Do we maintain relationships after the engagement ends? The client experience is not built solely through landmark wins, successful transactions or favorable outcomes. It is built through hundreds of small interactions that occur every day inside a law firm. Every phone call answered, email returned, invoice explained and update provided contributes to a client’s overall perception of the firm. When attorneys and staff understand the impact of these seemingly routine moments, they begin to see client experience not as another initiative, but as an integral part of delivering exceptional legal service. The firms that recognize this reality will not only create happier clients, they will build stronger reputations, deeper loyalty and more sustainable growth. 

When a law firm has an important position to fill, the interview process should move in an organized sequence. The firm should review the applications, select a group for first-round interviews, interview those candidates on the same day, identify the finalists, complete appropriate reference and background checks, and then conduct the final interviews on another designated day. Many law firms do not follow this process. Instead, they fall into what might be called the “trickle interview process.” One candidate interviews on Monday. Another comes in on Wednesday. Two more are interviewed the following week. A promising applicant cannot meet for another ten days, so the firm waits. Meanwhile, another resume comes in that somebody wants to consider. Before long, the interview process has stretched across several weeks. Some of the strongest candidates have accepted other jobs. The interviewers can no longer remember how the early candidates performed. The open position remains unfilled, and the hiring process seems to have no end. This is the trickle interview process. It is an inefficient way for law firms to hire. What Causes the Trickle Interview Process? The trickle approach usually begins when a law firm schedules interviews entirely around each candidate’s availability. Instead of establishing one or two dates for first-round interviews, the firm asks each candidate, “When are you available?” Every applicant provides different dates and times. The firm then tries to accommodate all of them. Being considerate of candidates is important. However, the law firm must still control its hiring process. A firm cannot allow every candidate’s calendar to determine when the firm will make an important hire. If it does, the interviews will inevitably spread across many days or weeks. The problem can become worse when several managers or lawyers must participate. Every candidate’s schedule must then be coordinated with the calendars of multiple interviewers who also have hearings, client meetings, deadlines, and other responsibilities. What looked like flexibility quickly turns into disorder. The Law Firm Begins Losing Good Candidates Strong candidates are rarely applying to only one employer. They may be interviewing with several law firms, companies, government agencies, or other organizations simultaneously. While one law firm is slowly conducting first-round interviews, another employer may have already completed two rounds and extended an offer. The candidate who interviewed first in the trickle process may wait two or three weeks without receiving a decision. Eventually, that person may assume the firm is not interested or that its management is indecisive. By the time the firm finally identifies its preferred candidate, that individual may have accepted another job. The law firm then moves to its second choice. But the second choice may also be gone. The firm may have to settle for a weaker candidate or restart the entire process. Moving slowly does not necessarily produce a more careful hiring decision. It may simply ensure that the best candidates are no longer available when the firm is ready to decide. Interviewers Cannot Compare Candidates Effectively Another significant problem is the inability to compare candidates accurately. When six candidates interview on the same day, their qualifications, personalities, communication skills, and answers are fresh in the interviewers’ minds. The hiring team can compare the candidates while the information is current. That becomes much harder when the interviews occur over several weeks. The interviewers may remember the most recent candidate more clearly than the person who interviewed two weeks earlier. They may forget an excellent answer provided during an early interview. They may also remember a general impression without recalling the facts supporting it. Interview questions may change as well. One candidate may be asked difficult follow-up questions while another receives a much easier conversation. One interviewer may focus on experience, while another focuses primarily on personality. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s guidance on structured interviews explains that candidates should generally be asked the same predetermined questions and evaluated under consistent standards. Conducting interviews in an organized block makes that consistency much easier to maintain. The trickle process makes comparisons less reliable and allows recency, memory, and inconsistent questioning to influence the final decision. The Hiring Standards Begin to Drift When the process lasts too long, the standards for the position may also begin to change. At the beginning, the firm may have a clear understanding of the experience, compensation range, availability, and skills it wants. As weeks pass, managers may become frustrated with the vacancy and start relaxing those expectations. A candidate who would not have advanced during the first week may suddenly appear acceptable during the fourth week because the firm is tired of interviewing. The opposite can also occur. The firm may continue waiting for a perfect candidate who does not exist. Every time the firm nears a decision, somebody wants to interview one more applicant. There must eventually be a cutoff. Otherwise, the firm never compares a defined group and never makes a decision. The Open Position Continues Harming the Firm An unfilled position is not merely an administrative inconvenience. When a law firm is short an attorney, paralegal, legal assistant, finance employee, receptionist, or manager, somebody else must perform that work. Existing employees may have to carry additional files, answer more calls, complete extra administrative tasks, or work longer hours. That can lead to: Reduced productivity Lower billable hours Slower client communication Delayed projects Employee frustration Burnout Overtime expense Client dissatisfaction The longer the trickle interview process continues, the longer the law firm operates without the employee it has already determined it needs. Interviewing one person at a time can feel less disruptive in the moment. In reality, it extends the disruption over many weeks. For practicing lawyers, scattered interviews can be especially distracting. Instead of setting aside one day for interviews and returning to their cases, they repeatedly interrupt their legal work for isolated interviews. The Firm Can Appear Indecisive Candidates are evaluating the law firm too. A hiring process that lacks a defined schedule may cause applicants to question how the organization is managed. Long periods without communication, repeatedly rescheduled interviews, and uncertainty about the next step can make the firm appear disorganized. A candidate may reasonably wonder: Does this firm make decisions promptly? Does management communicate internally? Does the firm respect deadlines? Will employment decisions also take weeks? Is the position genuinely open? Does the firm know what it wants? An organized process sends the opposite message. It demonstrates that the law firm has procedures, respects candidates’ time, and can make decisions. Follow the Proper Order of Making a Hire The solution is not to eliminate careful screening. The solution is to perform the screening in an organized order. As explained in “The law firm hiring process,” a firm should ordinarily proceed through a defined sequence: Post the open position Review and categorize the resumes Conduct first-round interviews Check references and perform any appropriate background checks with the necessary authorization Select the finalists Conduct second-round interviews Deliberate and select the preferred candidate Extend an offer while keeping an alternate in mind Notify the unsuccessful candidates after the position is filled Law firms often understand this sequence conceptually. The problem is that they do not execute it promptly. The first round should not remain open indefinitely. The firm should select a date, schedule the qualified candidates in consecutive time blocks, and complete the round. The same approach should be used for the finalists. As discussed in “Interview for open positions on the same day,” conducting each interview round on a designated day allows candidates to be compared while the discussions are still fresh. A Practical Interview Schedule A law firm might structure the process as follows: Before the First Round Establish the requirements and approved compensation range Require candidates to complete an employment application Address major salary discrepancies before scheduling interviews Review the resumes and applications Select the first-round candidates Prepare consistent, job-related interview questions Reserve one interview day on the necessary calendars Compensation expectations should be addressed early. As explained in “When a candidate’s salary expectations exceed the position’s range,” there is little benefit in repeatedly interviewing somebody who wants materially more than the firm is prepared to pay. First-Round Interview Day Schedule the selected candidates thirty minutes or an hour apart, depending on the position. Ask substantially the same core questions and use a consistent evaluation form. Each interviewer should record their impressions immediately after each meeting. At the end of the day, the firm should identify the candidates who remain in contention. Between Rounds Complete reference checks and any legally appropriate background-screening steps. Review writing samples, employment applications, compensation expectations, and other required materials. The firm should then select two or three finalists. Final-Round Interview Day Schedule the finalists on the same day. Afterward, the decision-makers should deliberate while all the interviews are fresh in their minds. The final round should not become a coronation. The firm should have multiple qualified candidates so it can make a genuine choice and retain an alternate if the first choice declines the offer. Offer Phase Once the decision is made, the firm should act promptly. A qualified candidate should not have to wait another week while managers revisit issues that should already have been resolved. Give Candidates a Reasonable Window, Not Unlimited Control There may be circumstances in which a strong candidate cannot attend on the designated day. Law firms can exercise reasonable judgment. A short video interview or a nearby alternative time may preserve the process without causing a substantial delay. However, one candidate should not be allowed to hold up the entire hiring cycle. The firm can offer a small number of interview times and explain that it is completing the round within a defined period. Candidates who are sincerely interested will often find a way to participate. The firm should be professional and courteous, but it must remain the organizer of its own hiring process. Stop the Trickle The trickle interview process may appear flexible, but it creates substantial problems. Candidates receive interviews one at a time. Decisions are repeatedly postponed. Interviewers forget the earlier meetings. Strong applicants accept other offers. The open position remains vacant. Law firms should interview by rounds, not by trickle. Conduct the first round within a defined window—preferably on one day. Conduct the final round the same way. Use consistent questions, compare the candidates promptly, and make a decision. A law firm cannot fill an important position efficiently when it allows the interview process to drift for weeks.

Your firm may already have the information it needs to strengthen client relationships and uncover new opportunities. A relationship partner knows a client is considering an acquisition. An associate knows the client’s legal team is stretched thin. A paralegal hears that the company is expanding into a new market. Marketing learns through feedback from a webinar that the general counsel is paying attention to AI. None of these pieces of information may seem particularly significant on their own. But what if the firm could connect them? Law firms gather an incredible amount of information about their clients every day. It comes from partners, associates, paralegals, legal assistants, client teams, marketing and business development professionals, client feedback programs, pitches, RFPs, and countless informal conversations. The challenge isn’t necessarily collecting more information. It’s connecting what people already know and turning it into action. Client Feedback Is Only One Piece of the Puzzle Formal client feedback interviews are incredibly valuable. They give firms an opportunity to hear directly from clients about what’s working, what isn’t and what matters most to them. But some of the most valuable client intelligence doesn’t look like “feedback” when it happens. Once when I was involved in a client conversation, the client raved about how much she loved working with the firm and complimented the outside attorneys on how seamlessly they collaborated with her internal team. It was everything the firm was hoping to hear. Then, as the interview began to wind down, she mentioned, almost in passing, that her finance team had recently implemented a new threshold rule for approving vendor invoices. Any invoice over that threshold triggered another layer of administrative back-and-forth that she had to deal with, and it had become a huge headache. We could have simply acknowledged it with an “Oh wow, that sounds frustrating and especially during busy season!” But instead, we got curious. Could she share the threshold amount? When the firm knew the invoice was going to be over that threshold, if they broke the amount up over multiple invoices, would that help eliminate extra steps for her? Her answer was an enthusiastic (and almost relieved) yes! We immediately shared what we had learned with the relationship partner and the firm’s accounting department, and the change was quickly implemented. It was a relatively small administrative change, but it sent a big message: We heard you. We understood the problem. And we did something about it to make your life a little easier. That builds trust and strengthens the relationship. And the same principle applies to the informal conversations happening every day. Listen to Learn, Not Just to Respond Attorneys are trained to solve problems. When a client raises an issue, the instinct can be to immediately offer a solution—or start thinking about what other services the firm could provide. Sometimes, the better approach is to listen. Give yourself time to understand what the client is actually telling you. One simple follow-up can help: “This is what I heard. Is that about right?” When the conversation allows, have a few questions ready that encourage the client to share what’s really going on: What’s getting the most attention internally right now? Are there any changes happening for you or your team? Have priorities from leadership shifted? What’s coming up that you’re starting to think about? The goal isn’t to interrogate a client looking for a cross-selling opportunity. It’s to understand what matters to them and the challenges they’re facing. Sometimes that information is professional. Sometimes it’s personal. One time in a coaching session, I had a partner casually mention that client A was a diehard Buffalo Bills fan. He also knew client B was equally passionate about the team, and both would be at the game that weekend. The partner had a great relationship with both and had frequently talked football. I suggested he introduce them. His email was simple and personable: He knew they both loved the Bills, knew they would both be at the game and thought they might enjoy connecting. Their response was appreciative, and it started a dialogue between them that was all business ... the business of football. Nothing was sold. No business-development pitch was made. He connected two people based on something he had learned about them. That’s genuine relationship building. It also illustrates why listening matters. Clients want to know that their attorneys listen to more than just the legal issues. Connect the Dots Knowing something about a client is only the first step. The real value comes from connecting that information with what others in the firm know—and then deciding what to do with it. One of the biggest challenges I’ve seen is that valuable client intelligence often gets trapped with individuals. The relationship partner knows something. An associate knows something else. An assistant hears a passing comment. Marketing learns something at an event. Another practice group has a relationship with a different executive at the same company. Everyone may have a piece of the puzzle, but no one has the full picture. This is where your firm’s marketing and business development (MBD) team can be your biggest ally. MBD professionals are often the unsung heroes of a firm. They may not be the ones sitting across the table from the client, but they are frequently the people connecting the dots across relationships, practices and opportunities. They see what is happening across the firm and can help attorneys turn good intentions into a coordinated plan. The opportunity is to make sure they’re part of the conversation. For example, I’ve worked with client teams (made up of partners, associates, paralegals, and business professionals) that held monthly or quarterly meetings where everyone shared: Recent client interactions and BD activity Key developments or news Feedback they had received New contacts or relationships Potential opportunities or concerns Ways other attorneys or practice groups could help By being part of the conversation, the MBD team could then take those individual updates and turn them into something useful: What are we hearing? What patterns are emerging? Who else needs to know? And what should we do next? During one meeting, the team learned that the client had recently experienced significant turnover among its junior associates and was having a hard time getting its new hires up to speed. The group discussed how the firm could help and decided to offer a series of complimentary training sessions focused on key issues, processes and players. The client loved the idea, the sessions were a hit, and the relationship grew. That same collaboration can change how attorneys approach business development as well. I’ve often seen multiple attorneys independently identify the same client or prospect as a relationship they want to develop. Once everyone knows what everyone else is working toward, those individual efforts can become collaborative ones. And that’s where your MBD team can really shine. They can help identify the overlap, bring the right people together, develop the plan, provide the resources and—perhaps most importantly—help keep the momentum going.  Attorneys bring relationships and client knowledge. The MBD team can help connect it, organize it and turn it into action. One relationship. Multiple attorneys. One coordinated approach. That’s the power of connecting the dots. Don’t Overlook the Intelligence in RFPs and Pitches RFPs and pitches are another often-overlooked source of client intelligence. Yes, the firm needs to answer the questions. But pay attention to the questions themselves. What is the client asking about? AI and technology Pricing or alternative fee arrangements Staffing and efficiency Industry experience Geographic expansion Client service expectations Areas of anticipated growth or concern Those questions can tell you a lot about what the client cares about right now. And once the work is won, that information needs to make its way into the firm. I’ve had attorneys ask months after winning an RFP what billing arrangements and rates were agreed upon with a client and if that information was shared with the finance department. In one case, a new rate structure agreed to during a pitch wasn’t properly communicated to finance, and the firm undercharged the client for more than a year. That made for an uncomfortable conversation all around. Capturing the information isn’t enough. The right people must know about it. A Signal Isn’t an Insight AI can make it easier to monitor what’s happening with clients—leadership changes, acquisitions, industry trends, regulatory developments and more. But a signal isn’t an insight. AI can surface information. The people closest to the client provide the context. And the MBD team can help connect the dots and determine what to do with it. That’s where technology becomes truly useful: not replacing relationships and judgment, but helping firms make better use of what they already know. Know. Connect. Act. Law firms already have an incredible amount of client intelligence. The opportunity is to make better use of it. Know what matters. Connect the people and information. Act on what you learn. Everyone who interacts with a client has a piece of the relationship. When firms create a culture where people share what they hear, and where the MBD team can help connect the dots, that information becomes much more valuable. Because the next business-development opportunity may not be something your firm needs to discover. It may be something your firm already knows.

For the better part of two decades, lateral recruiting has followed a familiar formula: identify a partner with a portable book of business, make the offer, and bank on the transition. The bigger the promised book, the bigger the win. That formula is starting to break down, and the reason isn’t the market. It’s the talent. I coach attorneys across a range of firms, and the shift I’m watching most closely right now is happening one generation down from the traditional lateral target. Young partners, often five to twelve years in, are rethinking what “making partner” is supposed to mean. They came up watching senior laterals get recruited on the strength of a client list, land at a new firm, and then spend two or three years finding out whether the culture actually fit. Some of them watched that experiment fail. They’re not interested in repeating it, for themselves or for the firms they’re evaluating. What they’re asking instead sounds less like “what’s the compensation model” and more like: Will people here actually invest in my growth? Do I believe in how this firm treats its people? Is there a path to owning relationships here, not just servicing someone else’s? That’s a different conversation than the one law firm leadership has traditionally been trained to have. The Firms Getting It Right Aren’t Chasing Book Size First On the firm side, I work with a handful of clients who’ve quietly rewritten their own recruiting playbook, and the pattern is consistent: they’ve stopped treating “will the book transition” as the primary filter and started treating it as one input among several. The questions that actually drive their decisions look more like this: Is this person a genuine cultural fit for the firm, not just a résumé fit? Do the attorneys who will actually work alongside this person like them, respect them, and want to support their success? Is there a real integration plan, or is the assumption that a strong lawyer will simply figure it out? To be clear, a transferable book and a strong skillset haven’t stopped mattering. They’re still table stakes; no firm is hiring a lateral it doesn’t believe can do the work and bring in business. But table stakes aren’t a differentiator, and the firms getting this right treat them that way. Fit is what determines whether the book, the skillset, and the person actually stick. Firms that lead with fit are making a bet that pays off in a way book-size bets often don’t: retention. A lateral who is genuinely liked and organizationally embedded is a lateral who stays, refers work internally, and becomes a source of growth rather than a flight risk three years later when a better offer comes along. The Second Half of the Equation: Knowing Where the Growth Actually Is Fit tells a firm who to bring in. It doesn’t tell them where to grow. That’s the second thing the firms I’d call sophisticated on this topic are doing well, and it’s less talked about than lateral hiring, but arguably more foundational. They’ve built real client feedback programs. Not the occasional relationship-partner check-in, but a structured, recurring discipline of asking clients directly: What do you need that you’re not getting? Where are we underinvested? What capability, if we had it, would make us more valuable to you? That insight, not a market trend report, not a competitor’s press release, is what should be pointing a firm toward its next practice group build-out, its next geography, or its next lateral hire. A firm that knows, with specificity, what its clients are asking for is a firm that can recruit with intention instead of opportunism. It’s the difference between “a great lawyer became available” and “our clients told us exactly what we’re missing, and we went and found the person who fills that gap, and who our people will actually want on the team.” Strategy Has to Sustain the Growth, Not Just Start It The firms doing this well treat lateral integration and client feedback as two halves of the same growth strategy, not separate initiatives run by separate departments. Getting the right person in the door is the easy part, relatively speaking. Sustaining growth means the firm has a clear enough picture of its own strategic direction that every lateral hire, every integration plan, and every client conversation is pointed the same way. As Kerry Price, Chief Strategy & Operations Officer at Bass, Berry & Sims, puts it herself: “Sustainable growth isn’t the result of any single great hire. It’s the product of a high-level strategy that ties together how we identify talent, how we integrate them, and how closely we’re listening to what our clients need—so that every lateral decision is in service of the same long-term direction, not a one-off reaction to who happens to be in the market.” A portable book gets a lateral in the door. Fit and feedback are what keep the lights on after that. Firms still chasing book size as the whole strategy are optimizing for a signing date, not a decade. 

Hiring legal support staff can feel straightforward on paper, but in practice it is one of the most consequential decisions a legal team makes. The right paralegal, contract attorney, or legal assistant can improve workflow efficiency, reduce risk, and keep matters moving under tight deadlines. The wrong hire can slow down case progress, create rework, and place additional strain on already stretched teams. First-time hiring managers and HR leads are not just reviewing resumes. It is knowing what to ask in an interview that reveals how a candidate will actually perform in a real legal environment. Strong hiring tips focus less on surface-level qualifications and more on judgment, reliability, and adaptability under pressure. Below are five interview prompts/questions designed to improve paralegal vetting, strengthen team-building decisions, and help you identify legal support professionals who will truly add value. 1. Walk me through how you prioritize tasks when everything is urgent. Legal work rarely arrives in a neat queue. Deadlines overlap, attorneys make last-minute requests, and discovery demands can escalate quickly. This question reveals how a candidate handles competing priorities without losing accuracy or composure. Strong candidates will describe a structured approach, such as assessing deadlines, identifying dependencies, and communicating proactively when workload shifts. Weak answers often rely on vague statements like “I just get it all done” without explaining the process. For team building, this question helps you understand whether a candidate can operate independently or whether they require constant direction. 2. Tell me about a time you caught an error before it became a problem. Attention to detail is non-negotiable in legal support roles. Whether reviewing documents, preparing discovery responses, or managing filings, small mistakes can lead to significant consequences. This question is especially valuable for paralegal vetting because it surfaces how carefully a candidate actually works under pressure. Look for answers that show ownership, such as reviewing work proactively, double-checking citations, or implementing personal quality control steps. The strongest responses will also include how the candidate communicated the issue and corrected it, not just how they found it. 3. How do you handle assignments when instructions are incomplete or unclear? In fast-paced litigation environments, instructions are not always perfect. A strong legal support professional knows how to move forward without making assumptions that could create risk. This question evaluates judgment and communication skills. Effective candidates will explain that they pause to clarify expectations, ask targeted questions, and confirm assumptions before proceeding. They will also show that they can make reasonable decisions when immediate clarification is not possible. From a hiring-tips perspective, this question helps identify candidates who balance independence with appropriate caution. 4. Describe your experience working with attorneys who have very different communication styles. Legal teams are rarely uniform in how they operate. Some attorneys want constant updates, while others prefer minimal interruption. Some are highly detail-oriented, while others focus on big-picture strategy. This question is critical for team building because it reveals how adaptable a candidate is in real workplace dynamics. Strong candidates will demonstrate emotional intelligence, flexibility, and the ability to adjust communication styles based on the person they are supporting. Look for signs that the candidate does not take feedback personally and can maintain professionalism even in high-pressure interactions. 5. What does high-quality legal work mean to you, and how do you ensure it in your day-to-day work? This question helps you understand a candidate’s internal standard for excellence. It also highlights whether their definition of quality aligns with your team’s expectations. Strong answers often reference consistency, accuracy, documentation, and accountability. Candidates may also mention checklists, peer review habits, or time management techniques they use to maintain accuracy. This is one of the most important questions for paralegal vetting because it goes beyond experience and focuses on mindset. Technical skills can be taught, but personal standards for quality are much harder to change. Beyond Performance: Addressing Potential Hiring Risks While behavioral interview questions help assess how a candidate is likely to perform on the job, experienced legal recruiters also recommend adding a few straightforward screening questions to identify potential concerns early in the hiring process. These questions are not about eliminating candidates based on isolated answers. Instead, they create space for transparency, context, and a clearer understanding of career decisions. Consider asking: What prompted you to leave your last position? Can you walk me through your recent career moves, particularly if you’ve had several short-term roles? Is there anything about your professional experience or career path that you’d like to provide additional context for? These types of questions help hiring managers understand patterns, clarify timelines, and surface anything that may be relevant to long-term success in the role. They also ensure the conversation stays grounded in professional experience while allowing candidates to explain their journey in their own words. Why Structured Interviews Matter More Than Ever Legal hiring has become increasingly complex. Teams are often hiring under time pressure, with limited visibility into a candidate’s real day-to-day capabilities. Without structured questions, interviews can easily become conversations about resumes rather than evaluations of performance. By using intentional hiring tips like the questions above, organizations can improve consistency in decision-making and reduce the risk of mismatched hires. This is especially important when building teams that need to scale quickly or support high-stakes litigation work. Strong interview design also supports better team building. Each hire does not just fill a role. They integrate into workflows, communication patterns, and case strategy execution. The better the fit, the more efficient the entire team becomes. Supporting Smarter Hiring Decisions At Array, we understand that finding qualified legal professionals is not just about filling open roles. It is about ensuring every placement supports accuracy, efficiency, and long-term success. Through our legal staffing and recruiting services, we connect firms and legal departments with carefully vetted professionals who are prepared to contribute from day one. Our approach to paralegal vetting and legal talent placement is designed to reduce uncertainty in hiring decisions. By focusing on experience, reliability, and proven performance in real legal environments, we help teams avoid costly hiring missteps and maintain momentum across matters. Whether you are building a new team or expanding support for growing caseloads, the right interview strategy is the first step toward stronger outcomes. With the right questions and the right staffing partner, hiring becomes less of a risk and more of a strategic advantage. 

Why rankings and traffic alone no longer fully explain intake performance. Many law firms still evaluate marketing performance primarily through rankings, traffic, and lead volume. These metrics are still important, but they no longer explain the entire intake picture. A law firm can rank well, generate traffic, and still quietly lose potential clients before a consultation request ever occurs. Most of the time, the issue is not visibility alone. It is what happens during the evaluation process between the search result and the first contact. Potential clients now compare reviews, validate firms through branded searches, evaluate attorney credibility, and ask AI tools legal questions before deciding who to trust. Important decisions are being made before a law firm website is ever visited. That shift is changing how firms should think about visibility, differentiation, and new case flow. Rankings No Longer Tell the Full Story Traditional SEO reporting still focuses heavily on rankings, impressions, clicks, and traffic. Those metrics still matter, but they do not fully capture several factors that now influence whether visibility actually turns into consultations and retained cases. Issues like losing trust during comparison, weak differentiation, intake friction, review inconsistency, AI-assisted pre-screening, and poor Google Maps visibility can all hurt intake performance long before a consultation request ever occurs. Visibility and consideration are no longer the same thing. Two firms may rank similarly while producing very different intake outcomes. One firm may appear more specialized, more trustworthy, or more established during the evaluation process, even when both firms are ranking in search results. That difference can directly impact consultation volume and retained cases. The New Client Evaluation Process Starts Earlier One way to understand this shift is through what can be called the “Law Firm Discovery Journey”: Problem Happens > Search Begins > AI + Maps Results > Shortlist Formation > Trust Validation > Practice Area Comparison > Brand Search > Contact & Intake At each stage, potential clients are making small decisions about trust, relevance, and credibility. The process often begins immediately after a legal issue occurs. Someone involved in a car accident, employment dispute, or business conflict may begin searching online under stress and with a limited understanding of the legal process. Historically, those searches were relatively direct: “San Diego employment lawyer” “Orange County personal injury attorney” Now, the process often starts much earlier and more conversationally. Potential clients can ask AI: “Do I even need a lawyer for wrongful termination?” “What is my case worth?” “Should I settle?” “How long do claims usually take?” “What should I do after a truck accident?” A recent LexisNexis consumer survey found that among consumers familiar with generative AI tools, 48% had already used AI for legal advice or assistance with a legal question. That changes how firms enter the decision-making process. Many people now receive preliminary information before ever reaching a law firm website. Google’s AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Gemini, and other AI-assisted tools can summarize information directly within search experiences. Research from the Pew Research Center recently found that users presented with AI-generated summaries were less likely to click traditional search results than users who did not encounter AI summaries. In many cases, the law firm website is no longer the first impression. It is simply one checkpoint within a broader evaluation process. 

There’s a new audience reading the thought leadership produced by attorneys and legal industry executives. The sooner they realize that and plan accordingly, the sooner they can take advantage of the opportunities this new audience offers. Attorneys and legal industry executives write their thought leadership for human readers. Makes perfect sense, right? Even with search engine optimization (SEO) driving how certain types of online content are written, attorneys and legal industry executives write thought leadership because it’s an effective way to position themselves as authorities. Thought leadership is about demonstrating knowledge and wisdom and providing insights to other humans. It’s not about writing content around specific keywords or trying to get to the top of Google search results. But times have changed. Today, the readers of thought leadership are no longer just humans. AI systems are now consuming thought leadership content at a scale that no human audience ever could. They’re evaluating our expertise, ranking our authority, summarizing our insights, and deciding whether our names and perspectives should appear first, fifth, or not at all when someone asks an AI platform to tell them who the “best” people are who do what we do, or asks questions that our published content could answer. And because of that, the legal industry’s traditional approach to publishing thought leadership is no longer enough. AI Platforms Are a New Thought Leadership Middleman One of the reasons thought leadership is and has been an effective marketing and business development tool is that no middleman filters its substance. Whether the thought leadership appeared in an email newsletter, a blog post, or a contributed article in a third-party publication, it was discoverable and digestible in its original form. When clients and referral sources discovered and digested thought leadership, they used it to evaluate the author’s expertise. They used it to determine who was knowledgeable and wise about the topics they covered in that thought leadership. They used it to decide whom to trust. They used it to decide whom to work with. But now AI sits between thought leaders and their audiences. It’s the new thought leadership middleman. It decides which content gets surfaced, summarized, or sidelined. AI platforms are shaping the visibility of attorneys, legal industry executives, and other professionals in the eyes of people using those platforms to find them. But many law firms and organizations that serve the legal industry don’t seem to realize what’s happening. They need to wake up, or they risk becoming invisible to AI platforms, leaving them invisible to clients, referral sources, and other target audiences. To be fair, searches on AI platforms pale in comparison to searches on Google. As of when I’m writing this, Google processes roughly 16.4 billion searches daily, while ChatGPT handles roughly 800 million AI searches. The latter’s share of searches is small (i.e., 4.9 percent). But an October 2025 Pew Research study found that users click links in search results 47% less when AI Overviews appear in Google results (8% click rate with AI Overviews vs 15% without). More concerning is that 26% of users end their browsing session after receiving AI-generated answers. That’s 63% higher than the 16% who end their sessions after a search when there are no AI Overviews. And therein lies the rub. Even though AI searches account for a relatively small (but growing) share of online searches, they often provide answers without citing the original source. Compare that to Google’s results, which, even when they display an AI overview at the top of the search results, will show a user links to other websites. If the user is searching for an answer to a question that’s answerable by thought leadership, the user could visit the websites where particular pieces of thought leadership live, consume that content, and find “new to them” thought leadership content creators whom they then follow-on social media, subscribe to their email newsletters, and/or generally become a new fan of. A New AI-Imposed Structure on Thought Leadership Much of the thought leadership published today is not structured in a way that AI will interpret as expert-authored. That’s not because the ideas in the thought leadership are weak; it’s because traditional thought leadership wasn’t designed to be evaluated the way AI platforms evaluate it today. AI penalizes vague structure, shallow analysis, and recycled summaries—traits that many pieces of thought leadership exhibit. AI rewards clarity, original insights, organized reasoning, and signals of genuine authority and expertise. In other words, AI is rewarding attorneys and legal industry executives who produce true thought leadership content—content that’s clear, original, organized, and shows that the author knows what they’re talking about. When we discuss structuring thought leadership on AI, we should briefly cover AEO, GEO, and AIO. AEO is “Answer Engine Optimization.” It’s the process of writing and structuring content so it’s easily understood by search engines’ built-in AI, which then summarizes it in the “AI Summary” section of its search results and, hopefully, includes a citation so users can see the content’s source. GEO is “Generative Engine Optimization.” It’s the process of writing and structuring content to increase its visibility in AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude. And finally, AIO is “Artificial Intelligence Optimization.” AIO is similar to GEO. It’s the process of writing and structuring content so AI platforms can more easily digest and understand it, and serve it up in answers to users’ questions. AEO, GEO, and AIO offer opportunities for law firms and organizations serving the legal industry to be first movers. The firms and organizations that produce thought leadership that appeals to both humans and AI platforms will be the ones that AI models reference in their results. The models will recognize the firms’ and organizations’ attorneys and leaders as trusted experts, cite their content more frequently, and recommend them as leaders in their fields more frequently. Time for Attorneys and Legal Industry Executives to Get in the Game Today, thought leadership has two audiences: humans and AI platforms. If an attorney’s or legal industry executives’ thought leadership doesn’t speak to both, they’re leaving visibility, credibility, and new business opportunities on the table. But these attorneys and executives can’t play the AEO, GEO, and AIO game, let alone the “produce thought leadership for humans to consume” game, if they’re not consistently producing thought leadership. They need to understand that, in today’s world, where AI is increasingly part of our everyday lives, building their authority—and perhaps a book of business—requires being seen as authoritative by both humans and AI platforms. The most effective path to getting there is by regularly publishing thought leadership, whether by taking the time to write it themselves, working with an associate or another colleague, or hiring an outside ghostwriter. 

A well-respected law firm CMO asked me recently: “What makes an effective business development plan for a lawyer?” At first blush, that seems like a simple question, but the more I thought about it, the less simple it became. I’d be curious to hear others’ views, but I ultimately landed here: An effective business development plan acknowledges the complexity of law firm sales and sweats the details. Call it sales management. To understand why detail-management matters so much, it helps to look at how sales experts define what we’re dealing with. Miller Heiman, one of the pioneering professional-services sales organizations, defines a complex sale this way (my paraphrasing): it unfolds over months or even years, involves multiple stakeholders, and requires hundreds of interdependent actions. Those actions must be identified, sequenced correctly, and completed on time. Miss or delay one step, and the pursuit can stall. Miss steps often enough, and the whole effort can crater. That’s why, in my opinion, accountability in complex sales must be binary. Every participant is given defined responsibilities, and for each, performance is judged simply by this: You had a task. Did you do it, yes or no? Consider some of those hundreds of interdependent actions. Did you: Make the phone call? Complete a business and competitive intelligence dossier? Schedule the conference room? Notice and share information about an industry development? Monitor the client’s stock price today? Give to the client’s favorite charity? Each task is small on its own. Together, they create a level of complexity that demands expert management. No matter how capable or motivated they are, most lawyer ... and, candidly, most professional staff under current firm structures ... don’t have the bandwidth, specialized expertise, or temperament required to oversee undertakings of this scale. But it would be wise to understand and emulate how parallel organizations have addressed the need. For years, the Big Four accounting firms and major management consulting firms have employed client-facing senior sales managers whose sole job is to oversee complex pursuits and client expansions. These are not junior coordinators, but rather seasoned professionals who design pursuit strategy, sequence actions, assign responsibilities, and enforce deadlines. Under this scenario, partners, as owners of the business, remain responsible for the legal work and for the overall pursuit, but execution is tightly managed by sales experts and business administrators. Law firms are now edging in the same direction. Some have invested in client or pursuit managers or senior BD leadership. Others are experimenting at the practice-group level. The direction of travel is clear: complexity demands professional management. What Most Firms Can Do Right Now Most firms don’t have Big Four-style sales leadership, and likely won’t anytime soon. But that doesn’t mean they’re stuck. Firm leadership can dramatically improve outcomes by introducing structure and discipline through four practical steps. First, appoint a pursuit owner. Every major opportunity should have one person responsible for execution: someone who sweats the details and tracks tasks, deadlines, and dependencies. And, if possible, that person should be someone other than an attorney, given the client-service responsibilities that only lawyers can provide and which can create bottlenecks impairing the entire pursuit. Second, standardize pursuit playbooks. Define required steps for complex opportunities: research, stakeholder mapping, content development, internal reviews, and follow-ups. Make them mandatory and uniform across the firm so that all personnel speak the same sales language. Third, make accountability explicit. Tasks should be assigned to named individuals with deadlines and measurable outcomes that can be answered “yes” or “no.” No shared ownership. No ambiguity. Fourth, review every major pursuit. Not just wins and losses, but process shortcomings and successes. Of course, examine what didn’t work: missed steps, unclear ownership, stalled momentum. Then, make room for celebration of what DID work: timely internal reviews, strong cross-practice collaboration, early client engagement, or crisp follow-up execution. This last point deserves emphasis: professionals involved in the grueling nature of large campaigns can become discouraged during long pursuits. Recognizing successful completion of interim tasks (even seemingly the smallest ones) and moving one step forward at a time creates positive energy, builds momentum, and reinforces the belief that a signed engagement letter, even if still months away, is achievable. Process reviews aren’t just about fixing problems; they’re about sustaining the human beings doing the work. The Outsourcing Option Increasingly, firms are outsourcing parts of this work. Standard pursuit components, such as research, competitive intelligence, pitch coordination, CRM hygiene, and even door-opening and pursuit management, can be handled by external specialists. For firms that cannot justify full-time senior sales leadership, outsourcing provides access to the same discipline, absent the headcount. It allows firms to professionalize their sales execution before making permanent investments. And it allows resource-constrained firms, especially small and middle-market firms, to compete effectively as never before. Artificial Intelligence tools are accelerating this trend. External partners can now leverage AI to accelerate research synthesis, improve consistent competitive monitoring, and streamline CRM maintenance—tasks that once required significant staff time. However, the strategic judgment calls—which opportunities to pursue, how to position against competitors, when to escalate client engagement—still require experienced human oversight. The firms seeing the best results are those combining AI efficiency with seasoned pursuit management, whether in-house or outsourced. Why BD Plans Fail Understanding what makes plans effective means recognizing what makes them fail. The most common failure modes I’ve observed include pursuit ownership that’s shared (which means no one owns it), playbooks that exist but aren’t enforced, accountability structures that allow “partial credit” rather than demanding yes-or-no answers, and reviews that only happen after wins or losses rather than continuously throughout pursuits. The bottom line: the most important component of business development effectiveness is understanding the complexity of law firm sales efforts and ensuring that pursuits and client expansions are guided by discipline and management. The specific mechanism—whether Big Four-style sales leadership, the pursuit of owners with standardized playbooks, or outsourced specialists supported by AI—matters less than the commitment to professional execution. I’d be interested in other perspectives. What, to you, characterizes effective business development planning? What makes it work…or not? 

Deciding who to promote inside a law firm is one of the most important leadership decisions you will make. Promotions do more than change titles; they shape firm culture, reinforce expectations, and influence how your team views opportunity and fairness. When handled thoughtfully, they motivate performance and reward the right behaviors. When handled poorly, they can create resentment, reduce productivity, and send the wrong message about what the organization truly values. For this reason, law firms need to think long-term about whom to promote to managerial or supervisory positions and whom to avoid promoting. Promote Performance—Not Noise In many cases, the best promotion candidates are not the individuals actively asking for advancement. Instead, they are the ones who show up every day, work hard, and consistently produce strong results. These team members meet or exceed productivity metrics, take ownership of their responsibilities, and provide a high level of service to clients. They tend to be dependable, team-oriented, and focused on the firm’s success rather than their own personal recognition. By the time they are promoted, they are often already functioning at the next level, and the promotion simply acknowledges the role they have been performing all along. Be Wary of Promotions Driven by Pressure Promotions driven by pressure or demands can create long-term problems. When an employee insists on being promoted or presents an ultimatum, it can signal a sense of entitlement that does not align with a performance-based culture. Advancement should never be used as a tool to retain someone who has not demonstrated consistent productivity, strong performance, and alignment with the firm’s values. That does not mean employees cannot express interest in their future. It is perfectly appropriate for someone to communicate that they enjoy working at the law firm and would be honored to be considered for advancement when the time is right. The key distinction is between professional interest in growth and a demand for a title. The Importance of Time and Consistency Time and consistency are critical factors in promotion decisions. While there is no single formula, it is usually wise to see an employee perform through different seasons of the practice before elevating them. A lawyer or staff member may perform well for a few months, but the real test is whether they can maintain that performance during busy, slower, and challenging periods. In many instances, a year or more with the firm provides the opportunity to evaluate reliability, judgment, work ethic, and cultural fit. You are not simply promoting technical ability; you are promoting trust. Promote People Who Make the Firm Better The strongest candidates for promotion are those who make the firm better in measurable and intangible ways. They improve the client experience, enhance efficiency, and positively influence the people around them. Their attitude and professionalism set a standard that others naturally begin to follow. When these individuals are promoted, the decision reinforces a culture where advancement is earned through performance, humility, and consistency rather than personality or politics. Culture Is Built Through Promotion Decisions Every promotion sends a message to the rest of the organization. It tells your team what success looks like, what behaviors are rewarded, and what standards truly matter. If promotions are tied to productivity, client satisfaction, teamwork, and long-term performance, the firm will attract and retain people who embody those qualities. If they are tied to pressure or short-term needs, the culture will gradually shift in that direction. Final Thought The most effective promotion decisions are deliberate rather than reactive. They recognize sustained excellence, reward the right behaviors, and position the firm for long-term success. In most cases, the right people to promote are not those asking for the opportunity, but those who have already earned it through their work.