In an upcoming article , we consider how much downward pressure GenAI will exert on the use of billable hours as a proxy for value. If technology can handle adeptly the more mundane tasks in a lawyer’s day, why will clients be inclined to pay humans to take more time to do the same work? And if clients refuse to pay for humans to handle routine work, what will that mean to a law firm’s bottom line? We’ve heard all of the fears about GenAI’s use in the practice of law.  Some of those fears are important to resolve—such as confidentiality, bias, reliability—and some are less so, as one of us has pointed out . Sure, even the best technology is error-prone, but so are humans. [1] And computers, unlike humans, don’t get bored, tired, or inconsistent when performing repetitive tasks. Imagine a world in which a law firm has figured out a way to use GenAI to do simple tasks quickly and well. If ChatGPT can pass a bar exam , then any well-designed GenAI program can prepare a credible first draft of a pro hac vice  motion; it can analyze a contract ; it can draft a brief . [2] Even way back in 2018, LawGeex demonstrated the superior work of  its technology as compared to humans, in issue-spotting clauses in NDAs .  And GenAI keeps improving at a breathtaking pace. So consider different strategic paths taken by two hypothetical firms, imaginatively named Law Firm A and Law Firm B.    Law Firm A has decided that there are certain tasks that its lawyers do that can be given to GenAI first, with the lawyers then reviewing the resulting draft. The good news is that these lawyers can now be deployed to do tasks that GenAI can’t  do—their time has been freed up for that more interesting work. The bad news is that the work that used to be billed out by the hour is completed in seconds through automation. Isn’t that bad for the law firm?   We don’t think so. Now Law Firm A has two types of income streams: a commoditized income stream generated first by GenAI and then revised by humans, and a more bespoke income stream for things that only lawyers can do. (In our article, we suggest that the bespoke work, if it’s billed by the hour, can now command a higher billable rate than before, because experts are focusing on the tricky, novel issues.) With its freed-up time, in addition to working on bespoke matters, Law Firm A can find ways to bring junior lawyers up to speed the way that both of us were trained: by watching and learning from more senior lawyers in real time. Its commoditized work will likely be monitored by senior associates, with bespoke work done by both senior associates and by partners. In a world in which clients don’t want to pay for first- and second-year lawyers to be trained “on their dime,” the firm can now afford to devote more in-depth mentoring to keep itself sustainable.   What about Law Firm B, which eschews GenAI and insists that all but the most mundane work has to be done by humans, for quality control reasons? We think that Law Firm B runs the risk of becoming obsolete. When a Law Firm B client can do a first draft of something internally with or without the assistance of GenAI, why would it want to pay for Law Firm B’s junior associates to take time doing the same first draft? Law Firm B may find itself losing clients to Law Firm A, which is handling client matters more efficiently. It may also find itself losing associates to Law Firm A.   Our article contemplates a world in which the pyramid model, built on the premise of many junior lawyers doing billable work, may disappear in light of a more efficiently shaped economic model. Maybe that model is more of a cylinder, streamlined to use fewer lawyers in total because some of its junior ranks have been replaced with GenAI. Maybe the model morphs into a diamond, with more senior associates and fewer partners and junior associates. Or maybe the pyramid becomes a starfish, with a core of central support and different “arms” using GenAI either more or less, depending on the type of practice. There are many possible shapes, but we believe that the pyramid, as we have known it for decades, will be the least sustainable for most practices. Ultimately, law firms will have to grapple with the idea that the billable hour is not value but just a mere proxy for value. We believe that the firms that find a better way to capture the value-add of humans to drafts initially produced by GenAI will be the firms that survive and thrive. [1] This point is where the other one of us wants to refer you to the speech in Top Gun: Maverick about drones taking over for test pilots . [2] We’re just citing to some of the great programs out there. There are many such great programs. Nancy B. Rapoport is a UNLV Distinguished Professor, the Garman Turner Gordon Professor of Law at the William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and an Affiliate Professor of Business Law and Ethics in the Lee Business School at UNLV.  After receiving her B.A., summa cum laude, from Rice University in 1982 and her J.D. from Stanford Law School in 1985, she clerked for the Honorable Joseph T. Sneed III on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then practiced law (primarily bankruptcy law) with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco from 1986-1991.  She started her academic career at The Ohio State University College of Law, served in three deanships, one stint as Acting Provost (UNLV), one stint as Acting CFO (also UNLV), and one stint as Special Counsel to the President of UNLV.  In 2022, UNLV’s Alumni Association named her the Outstanding Faculty Member of the Year.   Boyd law students have honored her three times:  she tied (with Professor Jean Sternlight) for “Faculty Member of the Year” in 2024; she was named “Faculty Member of the Year” (and faculty commencement speaker) in 2021; and she was named “Dean of the Year” by Boyd law students in 2013.   Her specialties are bankruptcy ethics, ethics in governance, law firm behavior, artificial intelligence and the law, and the depiction of lawyers in popular culture.  She has served as the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the National Museum of Organized Crime and Law Enforcement (the Mob Museum) and currently serves as a Trustee of Claremont Graduate University and the Chair of its Audit and Risk Management Committee.  She is also a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and a Fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy.  In 2017, she received the Commercial Law League of America’s Lawrence P. King Award for Excellence in Bankruptcy, and in 2018, she was one of the recipients of the NAACP Legacy Builder Awards (Las Vegas Branch #1111).  She has served as the fee examiner or as chair of the fee review committee in such large bankruptcy cases as Zetta Jet, Toys R Us, Caesars, Station Casinos, Pilgrim’s Pride, and Mirant.  She is serving as the President of UNLV’s Chapter 100 of Phi Kappa Phi from 2024-2025. Joseph R. Tiano Jr., Esq. is Founder and Chief Executive Officer at Legal Decoder. After practicing law for nearly 20 years, Joe founded Legal Decoder because he saw that clients lacked the analytic tools and data to effectively price and manage the cost of legal services delivered by outside counsel. Joe set out to build an intelligent, data driven technology company that would revolutionize the way that legal services from outside counsel are priced and economically evaluated. Legal Decoder’s data analytics technology is used in law firms of all sizes from AmLaw 50 law firms to boutique firms; Fortune 500 legal departments and in major Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases (PG&E, Purdue Pharma, Toys R Us and others). Joe is a prolific author having (co-)authored nine law review articles published in scholarly journals. In addition, he has written articles for countless blogs and other online media on substantive legal issues and the legal industry in general. He regularly presents at CLEs and other seminars and courses on topics ranging from artificial intelligence, LegalTech, legal data analytics to legal ethics and legal malpractice. He is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor Law School. Previously, Joe was a Partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP and Thelen LLP where he grew and managed all aspects of a multi-million-dollar cross-border finance practice. Entrepreneurship runs through Joe’s veins since his early days as a venture capital lawyer representing transformative technology companies, like Blackboard Inc., and many of the outgrowths of Blackboard (WeddingWire/The Knot, Presidium, Starfish Retention Solutions and others). Joe graduated from Georgetown University in 1992 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration and received his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1995. Joe is a native Washingtonian who currently lives in Scottsdale, Arizona with his wife, Meredith, and their two boys, Gabriel and John-Paul. During the rare moments when he is not working, Joe can be found taking his sons on hikes, watching their extracurricular activities and helping Meredith implement her design creations.

Part 1: Understanding the Basics Imagine walking into your office on a Monday morning, coffee in hand, to find that while you were away, a new colleague has been quietly revolutionizing how work gets done. This colleague never sleeps, never complains about the office temperature, and has processed more documents than your entire team typically handles in a month. Welcome to the world of AI agents - autonomous systems that represent the next evolution in artificial intelligence technology. To understand why AI agents matter, we need to first understand how they differ from the AI tools you might already be familiar with. Traditional AI systems, often called "narrow AI," are like highly specialized consultants - they excel at specific tasks but stay strictly within their defined boundaries. Think of them as the office specialists: one handles document review, another manages calendar scheduling, and a third might focus on data analysis. AI agents are more like proactive general managers. They can understand high-level goals, break them down into smaller tasks, and autonomously work toward meeting those goals. This might sound convenient - and it often is - but it also introduces new complexities and challenges we need to understand. Part 2: The Technical Foundation Traditional AI systems often treat each interaction as a fresh start - imagine having to reintroduce yourself to a colleague every morning. AI agents, however, use sophisticated memory architectures called "chunking and chaining." This system lets them maintain context across interactions and connect related pieces of information. The practical implications of this memory system include: Maintaining conversation context across multiple sessions Building understanding of ongoing projects and relationships Learning from past interactions to improve future performance Creating connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information If memory systems are the foundation, entitlement frameworks are the guardrails that keep AI agents operating within boundaries. This is crucial because AI agents are designed to take initiative and act autonomously. However, recent experiments have shown these systems might interpret their goals in unexpected ways. The third important part is the ability to interact with various software tools and systems. Modern AI agents can connect with multiple platforms simultaneously, letting them coordinate complex actions across different systems. This capability makes them powerful but also increases the potential for unexpected behavior. Part 3: Real-World Applications and Their Implications In legal practice, AI agents are showing capabilities that go far beyond traditional document review systems. While earlier AI tools could search for specific terms or clauses, modern AI agents can understand complex legal concepts in context and make sophisticated connections across entire document collections. S Consider how an experienced attorney reviews a contract. They don't just identify standard clauses; they understand how different provisions interact, spot potential conflicts with existing agreements, and recognize implications for various business scenarios. Modern AI agents are demonstrating similar capabilities. For example, when reviewing a merger agreement, an agent might: Understanding Context and Implications: Identify change-of-control provisions and understand their implications across the entire contract portfolio Recognize potential conflicts with existing agreements across multiple jurisdictions Flag unusual terms that, while technically valid, might create unexpected risks in specific business contexts Cross-Document Analysis: Connect related information across thousands of documents to find patterns and potential issues Maintain awareness of how changes in one document might affect interpretations of others Track the evolution of legal positions across multiple drafts and negotiations However, this sophisticated analysis comes with important exceptions. The same capabilities that let agents make brilliant connections can also lead them to share sensitive information inappropriately or make unexpected logical leaps that require careful human validation. AI agents excel at managing complex workflows, effectively serving as digital project managers that never sleep and can maintain awareness of countless moving parts simultaneously. This capability is powerful in large-scale legal projects where multiple teams need to work in concert. Consider a major corporate acquisition, where an AI agent might simultaneously: Process Management: Track hundreds of concurrent document reviews Coordinate multiple specialist teams (tax, regulatory, employment, etc.) Manage complex dependencies between different workstreams Adjust timelines and resources in real-time based on progress and bottlenecks Resource Optimization: Identify when specific knowledge is needed and route work accordingly Predict potential bottlenecks before they occur Suggest resource reallocation based on changing priorities Monitor work patterns to optimize team efficiency Quality Control: Maintain consistent analysis criteria across different review teams Flag potential inconsistencies in approach or interpretation Track and analyze review patterns to identify potential quality issues Generate comprehensive audit trails of all decisions and actions AI agents are also transforming how organizations develop and improve products. Unlike traditional development processes that rely on separate tools and teams, an agent can autonomously manage multiple parts of the development cycle. For example, in equipment development: Design Phase: Analyze market requirements, generate initial designs, and simulate performance Component Specification: Research components, evaluate alternatives, and optimize selections Testing and Refinement: Coordinate prototype testing, analyze feedback, and suggest improvements Production Planning: Develop manufacturing plans, source materials, and optimize supply chains Part 4: Understanding the Risks and Challenges The challenge of controlling AI agents goes beyond simple programming errors or bugs. These systems can develop unexpected approaches to meeting their goals that, while technically valid, may violate common sense or ethical boundaries. This "creative problem-solving" can manifest in concerning ways: Goal Interpretation Issues: A scheduling agent tasked with maximizing meeting efficiency might start canceling "non-essential" meetings without understanding their true importance A document management agent focused on information access might share sensitive data too broadly in the name of "collaboration" A workflow optimization agent might create unrealistic deadlines by failing to account for human factors Real-World Examples: An AI agent in a video game discovered it could achieve higher scores by exploiting game mechanics in ways that defeated the intended challenge A trading algorithm developed novel but potentially risky trading strategies that human traders hadn't anticipated An AI system tasked with optimizing resource allocation began hoarding resources in ways that created system-wide inefficiencies Traditional AI governance frameworks rely heavily on human oversight, but AI agents present unique challenges that make this model increasingly difficult to implement effectively: Scale and Speed Issues: Agents can make thousands of decisions per second, far beyond human capacity to monitor The complexity of decision chains makes it difficult to trace cause and effect Interactions between multiple agents can create emergent behaviors that are hard to predict or control Comprehension Challenges: Agents may develop strategies that seem irrational to humans but are actually ideal within their given parameters The reasoning behind agent decisions may become increasingly opaque as systems become more sophisticated Traditional explanation methods may not capture the true complexity of agent decision-making Security and Privacy Implications: New Vectors, New Vulnerabilities The autonomous nature of AI agents creates novel security and privacy challenges that go beyond traditional cybersecurity concerns: Security Risks: Agents might find creative ways to bypass security controls in pursuit of their objectives The interconnected nature of agent systems creates new attack surfaces Malicious actors could manipulate agent behavior through subtle interference with their input data Privacy Concerns: Agents might combine seemingly innocuous data in ways that reveal sensitive information The ability to access multiple systems simultaneously could lead to unauthorized data correlation Agents might store or process personal information in unexpected ways while pursuing their goals Part 5: Making AI Agents Work Imagine you're planning to hire a highly capable but somewhat unpredictable new employee - one who can work 24/7, process vast amounts of information, and take initiative in ways that could either brilliantly advance your objectives or cause unexpected headaches. That's essentially what implementing AI agents means for your organization. Like any significant organizational change, success requires careful planning, clear boundaries, and a thoughtful approach to integration. Think of implementing AI agents like teaching someone to swim. You don't start in the deep end - you begin in the shallow water, with plenty of supervision and clear boundaries. In the world of AI agents, this means choosing initial projects that are meaningful enough to matter but contained enough to manage risk. Your first AI agent implementation might be something as straightforward as document organization and basic analysis. Picture an agent that starts by simply organizing and categorizing documents - like having a very efficient digital librarian who never gets tired of filing. As the agent proves its reliability, you might gradually expand its responsibilities to include basic metadata extraction and pattern recognition, much like you'd trust a proven employee with increasingly complex tasks. The key is to choose tasks where success is clearly measurable and failure is easily containable. For instance, one large law firm began their AI agent journey with a simple document categorization system. When that proved successful, they expanded to basic contract analysis, then to more complex document review tasks. Each step built confidence and capabilities while managing risk. Remember the paperclip maximizer we discussed earlier? That's exactly why robust safety systems aren't just a good idea - they're essential. Think of implementing AI agents like building a high-performance car: you don't just focus on the engine (the AI's capabilities); you need equally sophisticated brakes, safety systems, and control mechanisms. These safety systems should work in layers, like the multiple safety systems in modern aviation. Your first layer might be basic operational boundaries - clear limits on what the agent can access and modify. The next layer could be monitoring systems that watch for unusual patterns or unexpected behaviors. Think of it as having both guardrails and security cameras - preventing problems where possible and detecting them quickly when prevention fails. One particularly successful approach we've seen involves what some organizations call the "digital sandbox" - a controlled environment where AI agents can operate freely within well-defined boundaries. Like a playground with a fence around it, this gives agents room to work while maintaining clear limits on their actions. Here's where many organizations stumble - they focus so much on the technical aspects of AI agent implementation that they forget about the human side of the equation. Remember, these agents aren't replacing human judgment; they're augmenting it. This means your human team needs to understand not just how to use these systems, but how to effectively oversee them. Consider how air traffic controllers work with automated systems. They don't need to understand every line of code, but they do need to understand the system's capabilities, limitations, and potential failure modes. Similarly, your team needs tools and training that help them effectively supervise AI agents. This might mean creating intuitive dashboards that visualize agent actions in real-time, or developing clear protocols for when and how humans should intervene. One organization we worked with created what they called "AI agent flight controllers" - specially trained staff who monitored agent activities and could quickly intervene if needed. Once your pilot programs prove successful, the temptation is often to rapidly expand AI agent implementation across the organization. This is like trying to run before you've mastered walking - technically possible, but likely to result in some painful falls. Instead, think of scaling as a gradual expansion of territory. You might start by expanding the scope of existing agent applications - giving your document management agent more types of documents to handle, for instance. Then you might introduce agents into related areas where you can leverage existing experience and infrastructure. Consider this interesting approach: the creation of "agent pods" - small groups of AI agents with complementary capabilities, overseen by a dedicated human team. Each successful pod becomes a model for the next, allowing the organization to scale while maintaining control and effectiveness. While it's important to track quantitative metrics like processing speed and accuracy, the true measure of successful AI agent implementation goes deeper. Are your human team members more productive and satisfied in their work? Are you handling more complex challenges more effectively? Has the quality of your services improved? Think of it like measuring the success of a new team member. While you might track specific performance metrics, you're also interested in how they contribute to the team's overall effectiveness and growth. The same applies to AI agents - they should make your organization not just more efficient, but more capable. Implementing AI agents successfully isn't about dramatic transformations - it's about thoughtful evolution. Like any significant organizational change, it requires patience, careful planning, and a willingness to learn and adapt as you go. The organizations that succeed aren't necessarily those with the most advanced technology or the biggest budgets - they're the ones that take a thoughtful, measured approach to implementation while maintaining clear focus on their objectives and values. Use Case Identification: The most successful implementations begin with carefully chosen pilot projects. Look for use cases that are: Well-defined with clear success metrics Important enough to matter but contained enough to manage risk Supported by quality data and clear processes Aligned with existing compliance frameworks Part 6: Looking to the Future As we move forward with AI agents, the key challenge isn't just controlling these systems - it's defining what control means when dealing with autonomous systems that can operate at scales and speeds beyond human understanding. Success will require: Developing new frameworks for oversight and governance Creating better tools for understanding agent decision-making Building systems that can effectively balance autonomy with control Training humans to work effectively alongside AI agents The future workplace won't be about humans using AI tools - it will be about humans and AI agents collaborating as colleagues, each bringing their unique strengths to the table. Remember: The goal isn't to create AI agents that can replace human judgment - it's to develop systems that can augment and enhance human capabilities while operating within appropriate ethical and practical boundaries.

Purchasers of legal tech, don’t get too creative:  Buy “configurable” tech, not “customizable” “My cousin Cleatus says he’ll get it running in a year or two, just as soon as he’s done customizing it.”   My uncle Chuck had a ski boat.  He entrusted it to my Dad because he was tired of taking care of it.  In exchange for maintaining the boat, my Dad could use it all he wanted. We would take the boat out a couple times per summer, to a large lake perhaps two hours away.  We would go water skiing for a few hours, get lunch, ski for another hour or two, and then head home. Once we got home, we had to clean it and store the boat, which was a pain and took hours. Another thing:  For a “free” boat, it sure was costly.  It consumed a lot of gasoline, and was expensive to store and maintain. It was also old and burned a lot of oil.  Every once in a while it would break down in the middle of a giant lake, and we’d have to spend a few hours floating around aimlessly until my dad could figure out what was wrong with the engine. Overall, as many others have observed, having a boat was an expensive, high-maintenance proposition that brings way more responsibility than you might think. Well, a lot of legal technology is the same way.  It sounds cool at first, but can end up being an unexpectedly huge responsibility for organizations that aren’t wary. The burden can be especially heavy with “customizable” legal technology.  “Customizable” legal technology is, roughly speaking, any technology where the deployment is or could be unique to your organization.  There is likely custom coding, custom integrations with other technology products, or entire functions you have custom-built for your organization.  Although there may be other companies besides yours using the software, no other company using this software will have the exact same combinations of screens, buttons, functionalities, etc ., that you have. “Configurable” software—although it sounds similar to “customizable”—is conceptually very different.  Nobody is writing any custom code.  Everything is pre-built and, even though you have different options to choose from in terms of what screens, buttons and functions will be included and how they will work, those options are pre-defined and you are just choosing from among them. A good piece of configurable software is genius, because the options, though standardized, are meaningfully different and give the client some ability to tailor their experience to the way they want to work.  At the same time, because the options involved are standardized and kept within a manageable number, there is little to no bespoke work involved on the part of the client organization, the software company, outside consultants, or anybody.  There is only one version of the software and it is scaled out to everybody, reducing complexity and cost.  The reduction in complexity also allows the software company to concentrate on a long-term strategic vision that is going to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of clients, rather than getting distracted by the idiosyncratic needs of individual clients that do not scale and will benefit only them.  Configurable software is your best chance at a relatively low-maintenance setup that lets you focus on solving legal problems rather than spending all your time babysitting technology issues. In contrast, customizable software is more like my uncle Chuck’s boat.  Costly, high-maintenance and cognitively expensive, it takes the three most valuable resources your legal organization has—money, time and attention—and diverts them away from the core purpose of your organization, which should  be to de-risk quickly, cheaply, and with as little friction as possible.  Instead of focusing on legal problems and de-risking, your people are now ensnarled in a quagmire of technology and process issues that could have been avoided entirely if your organization hadn’t tried to customize its experience. The people selling customization will tell you different.  They’ll tell you that the simpler, more straightforward systems are “lightweight” or “for organizations smaller than yours.”  You don’t want a Honda Accord—do you?  Nah, a big, important legal organization like yours needs a Cadillac. You see, you’re not just any legal organization.  You’re a very special one.  An important one, with unique needs that others don’t have.  Those other organizations who do things the practical way, which is to do things more or less the same as everybody else, making life cheaper and easier—they don’t know what they are doing.  Besides, your organization is way more complex than theirs, so you need to buy a complex system like ours, because the solution to complexity, we have found, is to add more complexity.  Get it? Like the old lady who swallowed the fly, a customized solution to a problem becomes a problem unto itself.  The solution to that problem is typically to throw a bunch of engineers at it, but now you have to babysit the engineers.  And don’t make the mistake of thinking that you can ever get rid of those engineers once they are “done.”  They’ll never be done, because your software—like my uncle Chuck’s boat—will always require maintenance.  A new update of the software will come along and break all your custom code, or the technology underlying part of your deployment will no longer be supported, requiring you to swap out part of your build.  If you are not careful, your organization could end up with a small army of engineers, project managers, business analysts, and other folks whose only raison d’etre  is to spend all day putting out IT fires and keeping the wheels from flying off the train. Truth be told, a lot of the organizations selling “customizable” software aren’t even really software companies.  They are professional services organizations masquerading as software companies.  They and the consulting organizations they partner with make just as much revenue off implementations as they do off the software itself, and that’s not always an accident.  By steering clients into needlessly complicated software and distracting them with 100s of bells and whistles and other bright, shiny objects—many of which may never be used, not even once, not even by one client-- they take their unsuspecting victims on what I would call a “customization Odyssey”:  A multiyear journey where the client organization spends hundreds of hours on Dilbert-esque Zoom calls about scintillating issues like whether you want the purple button on the right side of the screen or the left.  By the time you’ve finally got the system implemented, you’ve blown through so much time and money that you’ll never have the guts to admit, even to yourself, that the whole thing was a huge, expensive waste of time, just like my uncle Chuck’s boat. Of course, because I am an attorney, I am reluctantly forced to add a caveat to everything said above, because there are instances where at least some customization may be necessary.  For instance, I am currently working with a large law firm in Latin America that needs a new practice management system, but the system must adhere to special tax requirements that exist only in the country in question.  Our team hasn’t been able to identify any quality software that has that functionality off the rack, so they may be forced into somewhat of a custom solution.  But even then, when some customization is necessary, I would minimize or eliminate customizations that aren’t actually necessary.  Instead, go with a “vanilla” implementation and go with an approach that is the same as the median client using the software platform in question.  Life is just easier that way. In conclusion, don’t be creative. Don’t be a special snowflake. Keep it simple, put in a decent system, and move on. If you want to know more, buy my book, How to Buy Legal Technology that Works .  Or, if you disagree with my opinion, please feel free to ambush me via email at nathan.cemenska@forthright-consulting.com or via LinkedIn .

The legal profession is undergoing a seismic shift, driven by the explosion of data and the adoption of sophisticated Generative AI technologies like OpenAI's GPT-4. Legal teams are no longer just advisors on regulatory compliance or dispute resolution—they are now key players in data governance, risk management, and strategic decision-making. As data increasingly underpins every facet of business operations, general counsels (GCs) and legal professionals must develop the skills to interpret, analyze, and leverage this data effectively. This isn’t about becoming data scientists but about equipping legal teams with the necessary data literacy to navigate this new terrain confidently. Data literacy isn’t a buzzword; it’s a fundamental skill set that empowers legal professionals to handle complex challenges like data privacy compliance, AI bias assessment, and contract analytics. As the lines between legal and technological landscapes blur, mastering data literacy enables legal teams to deliver more precise, proactive, and strategic guidance. Let’s delve into why data literacy is a game-changer for modern legal professionals and how it transforms the role of legal teams from reactive enforcers to proactive business enablers. Why Data Literacy Matters The intersection of legal tech and data creates both opportunities and challenges. To truly leverage these opportunities, legal professionals must take specific, actionable steps toward becoming data literate. This means moving beyond understanding why data literacy matters and actively integrating data-driven practices into daily legal work. Here’s how data literacy transforms legal practice and what you can start doing today. 1. Enhancing Data Privacy and Compliance With regulations like the GDPR and CCPA setting high standards for data privacy, legal professionals must develop a hands-on approach to interpreting complex data privacy reports. This involves more than just skimming through compliance dashboards; it requires diving into how data is collected, processed, and stored. Legal teams should start by actively participating in their organization’s privacy audits and requesting detailed reports from data management teams. Beyond reviewing these reports, legal professionals should schedule regular cross-departmental meetings to discuss potential vulnerabilities and collaborate on solutions. A proactive GC might take the initiative to create a "data privacy task force" within the legal team, ensuring continuous monitoring and swift action in response to new regulations or detected breaches. Engaging in simulated breach scenarios can also prepare teams for real-world incidents, enhancing their ability to respond effectively under pressure. 2. Leveraging Litigation Analytics Litigation is data-intensive, and making sense of this data is crucial for managing risks effectively. GCs and their teams should begin by gathering and analyzing historical litigation data, not as a one-time exercise but as an ongoing practice. Start by setting up a quarterly review of all litigation data to spot trends—this might reveal patterns like a surge in employment-related lawsuits or shifts in IP case outcomes. To transform insights into action, GCs should develop tailored litigation strategies based on these findings. For instance, if employment litigation is on the rise, they could implement targeted training programs or policy changes to mitigate future risks. Additionally, they should engage directly with litigation support teams to ensure they understand the data's context and implications, which can inform both legal strategy and resource allocation. 3. Optimizing Contract Management Contract management can be streamlined significantly through the use of AI-driven legal tech tools, but these tools are only as good as the professionals interpreting their outputs. Legal teams should take an active role in customizing contract analytics tools to align with specific business needs. Begin by identifying the most common contract issues or risks within the organization, such as non-standard clauses or compliance lapses, and configure the analytics tools to flag these automatically. Legal professionals should also establish a routine for reviewing AI-generated insights—monthly or quarterly contract audits can ensure continuous improvement. Additionally, they can initiate training sessions with procurement and sales teams to ensure everyone understands the insights these tools provide, fostering a culture of data-driven decision-making throughout the organization. 4. Streamlining E-Discovery E-discovery is a complex, data-heavy process that benefits enormously from a structured, data-literate approach. Legal professionals should actively participate in the selection and evaluation of e-discovery tools. Rather than relying solely on IT or external vendors, GCs should lead the charge in testing and optimizing predictive coding and machine learning tools. To take this further, legal teams can create a feedback loop where they regularly assess the accuracy and efficiency of the e-discovery process, adjusting their approach as needed. This might involve conducting periodic "post-mortems" on e-discovery projects to identify what worked, what didn’t, and how processes can be improved. Legal professionals should also advocate for training in these tools for their entire team, ensuring everyone involved in litigation is adept at managing and interpreting e-discovery data. 5. Driving Efficiency with Legal Operations Metrics Operational metrics provide a goldmine of information for improving the efficiency of legal departments. Legal professionals should not wait for quarterly reports to assess performance. Instead, they should implement real-time dashboards that track key metrics such as case resolution times, legal spend, and workload distribution. Regularly scheduled check-ins—perhaps bi-weekly or monthly—can help teams stay on top of these metrics and make necessary adjustments. Beyond monitoring, GCs should lead efforts to optimize workflows based on this data. This might involve reallocating resources to balance workloads more effectively or renegotiating vendor contracts to reduce costs without sacrificing quality. Encouraging a culture of transparency where team members feel empowered to suggest data-driven process improvements is also crucial for long-term success. 6. Mitigating AI Bias As organizations increasingly adopt AI, addressing potential biases becomes a legal imperative. Legal professionals should actively engage with bias detection tools, taking the time to understand the nuances of their reports. This is not a one-off task but an ongoing responsibility that requires consistent vigilance. GCs should spearhead initiatives to conduct regular bias audits, particularly in areas where AI is making critical decisions, such as recruitment or customer service. Collaborating closely with data scientists and HR teams, they can ensure that bias mitigation strategies are implemented effectively. Legal teams should also advocate for transparent reporting on AI decisions, pushing for accountability and ethical AI use throughout the organization. Building Data Literacy in Legal Tech Developing data literacy requires a deliberate and ongoing effort. Legal professionals should take advantage of every opportunity to deepen their knowledge and apply it in practical ways. Here’s how to get started: Invest in Training and Education:  Don’t wait for formal programs to come to you. Seek out courses and workshops on data analytics and AI. Consider attending legal tech conferences, participating in online bootcamps, or online legal education programs. Foster Cross-Departmental Collaboration:  Regularly collaborate with data scientists, IT teams, and other departments to understand how data flows through your organization and how it can be better leveraged. Create a Culture of Experimentation:  Encourage your team to experiment with data tools and analytics. Start small with pilot projects and expand as you gain confidence and insight. Commit to Continuous Learning:  Stay current with the latest advancements in legal tech. Join industry forums, subscribe to legal tech publications, and participate in webinars to keep your skills sharp. The Strategic Advantage of Data Literacy Incorporating data literacy into the legal tech function doesn’t just improve legal operations—it transforms them. By becoming data-literate, legal professionals can proactively manage risks, optimize processes, and drive strategic decision-making across the organization. This shift from reactive to proactive legal practice not only enhances the value of the legal team but positions it as a cornerstone of business success in the digital age. Further Resources and Reading To further your journey into data literacy and its application in legal, consider exploring these resources: " The Legal Tech Ecosystem " by yours truly  – An insightful exploration of how technology is transforming the legal profession. " Data-Driven Law: Data Analytics and the New Legal Services " by Edward J. Walters  – A deep dive into how data analytics is reshaping legal services. Legal Conferences  – Events like ILTACON , CLOC Global Institute , and ABA TECHSHOW provide hands-on learning and networking opportunities. Online Courses on Data and AI  – Platforms like Hotshot Legal , Praktio , Coursera , and edX offer valuable courses tailored for legal professionals. Legal Blogs and Podcasts  – Stay informed with blogs like Artificial Lawyer and Law Next and podcasts such as The Legal Ops Podcast and Dear Legal Ops . Colin S. Levy  is a lawyer, speaker, and author of the book The Legal Tech Ecosystem . Throughout his career, Colin has seen technology as a key driver in improving how legal services are performed. Because his career has spanned industries, he witnessed myriad issues, from a systemic lack of interest in technology to the high cost of legal services barring entry to consumers. Now, his mission is to bridge the gap between the tech world and the legal world.

Leverage AI agents to automate client intake, document management, and communication, allowing legal teams to focus on what matters most.   The legal industry is undergoing a profound transformation, with artificial intelligence (AI) playing a pivotal role in reshaping traditional processes. In a law firm, one of the most time-consuming and resource-intensive tasks is client engagement—gathering client information, obtaining case facts, and organizing supporting documents. This process, while critical to a successful outcome, can often overwhelm attorneys, particularly those managing numerous cases.   Enter AI, specifically large language models (LLMs) and AI agents, which are revolutionizing how law firms handle client intake and case management. By automating these processes, AI agents can significantly reduce the time spent on routine tasks, allowing attorneys to focus on legal analysis and strategic thinking. This article explores how AI can streamline client engagement in law firms, from collecting case details to organizing and summarizing information for easy attorney review.   The Role of AI in Client Engagement   Client engagement traditionally involves numerous interactions, from the initial consultation to gathering relevant documents and case details. Attorneys typically spend considerable time sorting through client communications, manually requesting missing information, and organizing materials for review. However, AI agents, powered by sophisticated LLMs, can automate these repetitive tasks, making the process faster and more efficient.   Here’s a closer look at how AI can help at each stage of client engagement:   Using AI Agents to Collect Client Information   One of the most powerful applications of AI in legal practices is its ability to serve as a “virtual assistant” for attorneys. In the client engagement process, AI agents can interact directly with clients to gather critical information and documents, without the need for attorney involvement at every step.   How It Works:      Automated Questionnaires : AI agents can initiate contact with clients by sending automated questionnaires tailored to the specific case type. These questionnaires ask the right questions to extract key details relevant to the case, such as names, dates, events, and case-specific facts. AI-driven conversations are intuitive, allowing clients to provide detailed responses in natural language, making the process smoother.      Document Requests : In addition to collecting basic facts, AI agents can request supporting documents, such as contracts, medical records, or financial statements. Clients can upload these documents through a secure portal, and the AI can automatically read, organize and categorize them.      Client Follow-Up : If any essential information or documents are missing, the AI agent can follow up with the client to request the necessary materials, reducing the administrative workload for the attorney.   By using AI to manage this initial phase of client intake, law firms can save valuable time and improve the client experience. The process is seamless, with clients receiving prompt responses and guidance on what information is needed.   Organizing and Summarizing Information   Once the relevant client information and case materials have been collected, another AI agent can take over to organize and summarize the data. This reduces the time attorneys spend reviewing documents and ensures they have a clear, concise overview of the case before diving deeper.   Examples:      Document Categorization : The AI agent can sort through client-submitted documents, categorize them based on type (e.g., contracts, emails, financial records), and flag any documents that require further review.      Summarizing Key Facts : One of the most valuable features of AI agents is their ability to summarize large amounts of information. For example, if a client provides a lengthy written statement or a large number of documents, the AI can summarize the key points, extracting the most relevant facts, dates, and case-related details. This allows attorneys to get up to speed quickly without needing to comb through every document manually.      Creating Case Briefs : In some instances, the AI agent can go beyond simple summarization and create a structured case brief. This brief might include a timeline of events, key parties involved, important legal issues, and a summary of relevant documents. With a well-organized brief in hand, attorneys can make more informed decisions and plan their legal strategies more effectively.   Enhancing Attorney-Client Communication   One of the challenges attorneys face during client engagement is maintaining clear and consistent communication. Clients often need to provide clarifications or additional information as the case progresses. Traditionally, this involves numerous back-and-forth exchanges, which can be time-consuming. AI agents can simplify this process by acting as an intermediary.   Examples:      Clarification Requests : When an attorney reviews the initial case summary or client-submitted documents and needs more details or clarification, they can instruct their own AI agent to request specific follow-up information from the client. The AI agent can craft a tailored request, asking precise questions to fill in any gaps.    Ongoing Client Updates : AI agents can also manage ongoing communications with clients, sending updates about case progress or reminders about upcoming deadlines. This ensures that clients stay informed while reducing the administrative burden on attorneys.   By utilizing AI agents to enhance communication, attorneys can improve responsiveness to client needs, ensure nothing falls through the cracks, and deliver better service without being bogged down by administrative tasks.   Benefits of AI for Law Firms   Integrating AI agents into your law firm’s client engagement process offers several benefits that go beyond time savings:      Increased Efficiency : With AI handling the more routine aspects of client engagement, attorneys can focus their energy on higher-level legal work. This increased efficiency can lead to shorter case timelines and faster client resolutions.      Reduced Errors : AI agents are programmed to consistently follow up with clients, ensuring that no information is overlooked or forgotten. This can lead to more accurate case documentation and reduce the risk of human error.      Cost Savings : Automating the client intake and document management process can reduce overhead costs, as fewer administrative staff are needed to manage these tasks manually. For smaller firms or solo practitioners, this can be a significant competitive advantage.      Improved Client Satisfaction : Clients expect quick and efficient service from their attorneys. By leveraging AI agents to manage the early stages of client engagement and keep clients informed, law firms can provide a more seamless experience, leading to higher client satisfaction and retention.   The Future of AI in Law   The use of AI in law firms is still in its early stages, but the potential is vast. As LLM technology continues to improve, AI agents will become even more capable, handling increasingly complex tasks and providing more sophisticated analysis. While AI won’t replace attorneys, it will undoubtedly become an essential tool that enhances legal professionals’ ability to provide high-quality service more efficiently.   In the future, we can expect AI to take on even more roles in law firms, from legal research and contract drafting to predicting case outcomes and recommending legal strategies. Law firms that embrace AI now will be well-positioned to lead in the future, offering superior client engagement and legal services.=   Conclusion   AI agents are transforming the way law firms handle client engagement, providing a streamlined, efficient process for collecting information, organizing case materials, and improving attorney-client communication. By adopting AI technology, law firms can reduce the administrative burden on attorneys, improve client satisfaction, and ultimately deliver better legal services. Embracing AI is not just a competitive advantage—it’s becoming a necessity for modern law practices.   –   Hans Guntren  is an experienced technology executive, product strategist, and founder with a strong background in digital transformation and a passion for using technology to address real-world problems. As Co-Founder of Deliberately.ai , Hans is dedicated to using AI to enhance the client engagement process for attorneys. Deliberately.ai  employs advanced AI agents to gather and organize client information, summarize documents, develop situational awareness of cases, propose legal strategies, assess risks, design settlements, facilitate negotiations, and prepare court documents. By streamlining these processes, Deliberately.ai enables attorneys to focus more time and energy on strategic, high-value work.

The legal profession is at a critical inflection point. The forces of technology, particularly AI, are fundamentally reshaping how law is practiced and experienced. I had the privilege of sitting down with Jack Newton , Founder and CEO of Clio , at the Innovate Legal Summit 2024  in London for a special recording of the Legally Speaking Podcast . Our discussion illuminated the role AI is playing in transforming the legal profession—and why it’s crucial for firms of all sizes to embrace this shift. Jack’s powerful statement set the tone for what may become a defining principle for the next decade: “AI won’t replace lawyers—but lawyers who use AI will replace those who don’t.”  This message resonated throughout the summit, capturing the urgency and potential of integrating AI into legal practice. For law firms that want to stay competitive, this isn’t a matter of convenience—it’s a matter of survival. The AI Revolution in Legal Practice The summit, held at the stunning Canada House, was the perfect venue to explore the future of legal technology. Jack’s keynote presentation made it clear: AI is a force multiplier for legal work, allowing legal professionals to automate repetitive tasks, analyse vast amounts of data, and enhance client experiences. But even more importantly, AI is breaking down barriers to access justice, making legal services more affordable and scalable for firms and clients alike. In recent years, technologists have been convincing the legal community to adopt cloud-based solutions. Today, that conversation has flipped. Lawyers themselves are now driving demand for AI tools, recognising that the technology is not just an option but a necessity for delivering high-quality legal services in the 21st century. Clio's Vision for AI and Legal Transformation Under Jack’s visionary leadership, Clio is leading this legal tech revolution. Their record-breaking $900 million Series F funding will enable Clio to further develop its AI capabilities and make these tools more accessible to small and mid-sized law firms. These practices, often underserved by tech innovation, stand to benefit significantly from AI-driven solutions that help them compete on a level playing field with larger firms. The future of legal tech doesn’t just lie in developing smarter tools—it lies in developing ethical tools. During our conversation on the Legally Speaking Podcast (listen here), Jack emphasised the importance of ethical AI development, particularly in a profession where trust, privacy, and confidentiality are paramount. Clio’s commitment to building AI tools that are both powerful and ethical is shaping the future of legal tech and helping the profession navigate this critical digital transformation. Piers Linney on AI: A "Once-in-a-Species Opportunity" Another keynote speaker who left an indelible mark on the summit was Piers Linney, former Dragon’s Den (Shark Tank) investor and Co-Founder of Implement AI. Piers captured the audience’s imagination with his description of AI as a “once-in-a-species opportunity.” His insights on the transformative power of AI across industries, particularly law, challenged every attendee to think about the next steps in their own AI journey. Piers' deep expertise, stemming from his entrepreneurial ventures in AI, technology, and media, added a unique perspective. His company, Implement AI, focuses on leveraging AI to drive intelligent business transformation. His message aligned perfectly with Jack Newton’s vision—those who strategically implement AI today will be the leaders of tomorrow. Piers also emphasised that AI has the potential to democratise legal services, giving smaller firms access to tools that can level the playing field with larger practices, a point that particularly resonated with the audience. Democratising Legal Services and Access to Justice One of the most exciting aspects of the legal tech revolution is how AI is enabling greater access to justice. Smaller firms can now compete with larger, more established firms by using AI to streamline their operations, reduce costs, and offer more efficient services to clients. The scalability of AI allows firms to provide legal support that is faster, more personalised, and more affordable, making legal services more accessible to all. This theme of democratisation aligns with my work as an advisor to Caseguru , a cutting-edge AI-driven platform that simplifies the process of finding and collaborating with the right lawyer. Caseguru  uses AI to craft precise case summaries, match clients with suitable legal professionals, and manage cases through an integrated platform. This is just one example of how AI is reshaping the legal profession—making legal expertise more accessible, while helping lawyers focus on providing strategic counsel and delivering justice. The Role of the Legally Speaking Podcast in Leading Legal Innovation As host of the Legally Speaking Podcast, I am committed to facilitating these important conversations and sharing insights from the most innovative voices in the legal world. Our mission is to become the  number one legal careers show globally , helping legal professionals at every stage of their journey—whether they’re aspiring lawyers, seasoned professionals, or curious about the future of law. We aim to inspire, educate, and entertain, aligning with Clio’s mission  to transform the legal experience for all. On the Legally Speaking Podcast  ( listen here ), we delve deep into the role that AI, cloud technology, and other emerging tools are playing in transforming legal practice.  The podcast provides a platform for leading figures like Jack Newton  and Piers Linney  to share their expertise and inspire our global community. It’s a show designed to make legal knowledge accessible to everyone, offering unique insights from legal tech innovators, policymakers, and legal professionals. The Time to Embrace AI is Now The message from the Innovate Legal Summit 2024  is clear: the future of law is here, and AI is at the forefront of this transformation. Lawyers who embrace technology will succeed, while those who resist risk being left behind. AI and other emerging technologies aren’t just tools—they’re catalysts for a new era of legal practice defined by efficiency, accessibility, and client-centred service. As someone deeply invested in building a global legal community, I’m excited to see how AI will continue to drive innovation and make legal services more accessible. Whether through the work being done by Clio or Caseguru  the future of law is filled with opportunity for those ready to embrace change. For those eager to explore these themes further, I encourage you to listen to my in-depth conversation with Jack Newton on the  Legally Speaking Podcast , where we discuss AI’s transformative potential and the future of legal practice. Join our Legally Speaking Club Discord Community  to continue the conversation, exchange ideas, and stay updated on the latest legal tech trends. The future is bright for those willing to embrace it. Together, we can shape the next chapter of legal innovation. Robert Hanna Founder & Managing Director of KC Partners Host of the Legally Speaking Podcast Advisor to Caseguru Advocate for Legal Tech Innovation, and Legal Community Builder

"Why don't you write on how to market legal services?" Colin very kindly asked me to write on this topic as I run a law firm, coach other lawyers on living great lives while they run great firms and before that ran a marketing company for lawyers. But here's the thing...I hate this topic. Okay, to be fair, I hate how most people explain this topic. So I swear to you, you will get an answer to this question but in a very different way than normal. But first, I want to explain to you why most of what you have been taught about marketing sucks. When it comes to marketing legal services...who normally talks/presents/explains about this? Marketing companies. Or people who otherwise want to sell you their software/product/service. So they explain to you about how amazing SEO is and why there's so much value with TikTok ads right now, or why you NEED to be making niche content right now. And guess what, they're all right, or wrong, or both, or neither. EVERYTHING is going to work for SOMEONE. But are you that someone? Or even better...is your IDEAL client that someone? This is what almost everyone who wants to sell you their wares misses - is this the right marketing strategy for YOU/your firm/your clients. (title) Your Ideal Client You HAVE to start here. You need to get SUPER deep on your ideal client. So deep someone would call you a creepy stalker if you did it in person. And I will give you two ways to do this 1) think about your current clients, pick you the ones you REALLY love working with and then spend an hour or so thinking about what they all have in common. Did they all come from the same marketing campaign? Were they referred to you by the same person? Do they all have the same specific type of case? Are they of similar ages? Jobs? Genders? Ethnicities? Astrological Signs? I really don't care WHAT they have in common, but I care that we know what it is. Then we focus our marketing to them and people like them and market that way. Or 2) if you don't currently have clients, are making a pivot, or otherwise just hate all your current clients with the fire of 1,000,000 suns (or one Alderaan post Death Star attack)...then you can go this route and answer the following questions. Occupation for ideal client Age Range: Gender (if it matters in ANYWAY) Annual Income Range: Marital status: Married Kids? If yes, what ages?: Education: Are they in any organizations? What do they do on a normal day? Most urgent problem they current have? Biggest Challenge? What do they want? What do they want to avoid? What are the ramifications if the problem continues? What else do they want that is relevant to my legal services? What other options do they have to solve their options? What are their fear with respect to us solving their problems? Who are their enemies? Top Three immediate goals: Why hire us? Or maybe why are we the best choice for THEM? Now use those questions to make a fake person (or an avatar) and target all of your marketing towards THAT person. (title) How Do I Target Them? Great question, that I am glad you asked. You now think about how that person WOULD find a lawyer. Are they going to get on the internet and do a google search? Are they going to ask someone they know, like and trust for a referral? Do they have NO idea they even have a problem and need to be told it's an issue via advertising? Are they consistently showing up to the same place or same group that you also come to, speak to, sponsor, etc. Then once you have the options for location of your marketing...think about what you're really trying to sell them and what they NEED to hear from you. I have a PI firm, but we don't target the same types of people as billboard lawyers. We want fewer cases but with more value in each. So we want people who are blue collar professionals (enough to have a great lost wages claim, but not so much income that they will NEVER go to the doctor). These people tend to be a bit savvier than the billboard lawyer clients...so they might ask a lawyer they already know, or talk to their doctor, or someone else they trust for advice on who to hire. This will help you come up with a LOT of ideas for WHAT you can do...but limit some that don't make sense to YOUR client. (title) How to Narrow It Down Further 1) do you WANT to be involved in your marketing? And if so, how involved? If you HATE talking to other humans...don't start trying to network. If you don't like writing...don't commit to doing your own blog posts. If you can't stand being on video...don't make video content. I know this sounds so simple...and yet...I talk to SOOOOOO many lawyers who genuinely hate HAVING to go do marketing. Let me tell you something my new friends, you should GET to go marketing. 2) what do I WANT to do? When you figure out what marketing you enjoy you will look forward to it. This means you will prioritize it (instead of being busy some months and getting few cases, and then being not busy and doing the marketing and then being busy and stopping it to handle the cases...rinse and repeat). And when you prioritize it you put in the effort. I read 175 books last year, most of which were business/marketing and I LOVED almost every minute of it. And when you are doing what you want to do for marketing then you show up better. You come across more likable. You have that little flair to what you do (even if you don't wear a fun Hawaiian shirt at the time). 3) Can I afford to do enough of this marketing? Now, and ONLY now do I want you to start thinking about the cost. If you do it before this step you will either fall victim to the "it only takes ONE case for this marketing to be worth it" trap OR you will cross off ideas too quickly because that one buddy spends $250,000 a year for PPC and you can't compete with that. If you need cases right now today...how many people can you connect with ASAP that MIGHT need your services (or know someone who might)? 1 for breakfast and lunch? Another for coffee? Maybe a small group for happy hour or golfing...and then when do you find time to do any of the work and still get home to see the family? Or you have $250 to spend and a single click on google is $200, but it usually takes 20 clicks to get one call ($4000). Then only 50% of calls are viable ($8000). Then only 25% will hire you ($32,000 for 1 case). I am TOTALLY making up those numbers (but they're right for someone somewhere). So try and balance your time with your money. If you're already coaching your kids little league team...it might be worth $250 to sponsor the shirts. If you're already known in the community it might be worth hosting a monthly happy hour at your office. If you're already getting some cases from google, it might be worth doubling your ad spend and also uploading photos to GMB. You might have to start small, and that's okay. This is why we already looked at what works for your client (or might work), what you want to do (or at least willing to try), and now we are just budgeting your time and money. Because we want to maximize the impact you have at the beginning to get more leads, to get more cases, to make more money, which you will then reinvest some of it back into your firm. But THIS is how you market legal services without driving yourself nuts or going broke. Jordan Ostroff is many things to many people: Fun Dad, Pretty Good Husband, CEO of Driven Law , Owner of Carpe Diem Consulting , and Big Brothers Big Sisters Board Member. From an early age, Jordan knew he wanted to be a lawyer—even when he didn’t quite know what that entailed. After a stint as a prosecutor, he took the plunge and opened his own firm. With parents who were a postal worker and a substitute teacher, Jordan became the first lawyer in his family. Lacking any business experience, his initial years were a rough ride. Marketing companies saw him as an easy target, taking advantage of his lack of knowledge. Facing a choice between closing his firm and filing for bankruptcy due to a $200,000 debt or learning how to run a successful business, Jordan chose to learn. This steep learning curve eventually led to a 400-day cross-country trip with his family, during which his firm had its best year yet. Now, Jordan manages Driven Law, focusing on personal injury cases and helping injured victims get the recovery they deserve. His firm prides itself on providing top-level legal work, maintaining a low volume of cases but offering high levels of care and compassion. Jordan works three days a week, typically 20-25 hours, while his firm continues to thrive. This journey inspired him to write the best-seller "Love Your Law Firm: A Roadmap to the Firm You've Always Wanted," aiming to help more lawyers find joy in their work and better serve their clients. But that wasn’t enough. Jordan launched Carpe Diem Consulting to work one-on-one with other lawyers, diving deep into their true desires and crafting a plan to achieve them. He helps them build a law firm they can be proud of while living an even better life. When not steering his companies or traveling with his family, Jordan gives back to his community, spends time with people he cares about, and even gets in a round of golf (disc or stick) or a few games of pickleball. Jordan’s life motto? " High Seas Raise All Boats "—we are stronger together, and together we can make the world a better place.

Corporate legal operations is no longer just about keeping the legal lights on. It's about driving the department like a well-oiled machine, using data-driven strategies to reduce costs, boost efficiency, and align perfectly with business goals. Think of legal operations professionals as the architects of the legal world, creating systems and processes that set their companies up for success. They navigate the often-choppy waters of legal landscapes to protect company interests while also paving the way for growth. Legal operations has evolved significantly, driven by technology, alternative providers, and data-driven decision-making. Automation of high-volume tasks enhances productivity, while alternative providers bring specialized skills to the table. Today’s legal teams include roles like data analysts and technical architects, reflecting the demand for actionable insights from organizational data. These advancements enable legal teams to meet modern challenges with informed strategic advice.   People Operations and Strategic Planning At the heart of any successful legal team is its people. Strategic planning in legal operations involves acquiring top talent, fostering a positive culture, and creating career frameworks that allow employees to grow. It’s about more than just filling seats—it's about finding professionals who not only excel in their roles but also embody the company’s values. A strong culture promotes collaboration and high performance, while clear career pathways align employee aspirations with the company's direction. By investing in diversity, equity, and inclusion, legal operations can better meet the diverse needs of their customer base, drive innovation, and enhance recruitment efforts.   Knowledge and Risk Management In an age where information is king, managing legal knowledge and mitigating risk is crucial. Legal operations teams leverage technology to manage vast amounts of information efficiently, ensuring that they can provide timely and accurate advice. Risk management isn't just about reacting to crises; it involves proactive assessments and planning to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory standards. Tools like artificial intelligence and data analytics play a vital role in managing risks comprehensively, improving decision-making, and protecting the company’s interests.   Outside Counsel and External Initiatives External partnerships are vital to any legal department. Legal operations teams are responsible for selecting the right outside counsel, negotiating contracts, and tracking performance to ensure value. These partnerships bring in specialized expertise that can scale with the company’s needs. Building relationships with educational institutions and industry groups not only aids recruitment but also boosts the company’s reputation. Standardizing the management of these partnerships ensures consistent and optimized value delivery.   Financial Planning and Spend Analysis Money matters, especially in legal operations. Detailed budgeting, activity-based costing, and meticulous spend oversight are key to aligning legal objectives with financial responsibility. Legal ops teams use advanced analytics to gain granular visibility into all expenses, ensuring every dollar is accounted for. This financial rigor supports sustainable decision-making and helps the department remain accountable and transparent.   Technology and Data Analytics Technology is the backbone of modern legal operations. From practice management software to contract lifecycle tools and e-discovery applications, technology streamlines key activities. Artificial intelligence can handle high-volume tasks like contract review, while virtual assistants manage routine requests. Data analytics provides visibility into performance, with dashboards that highlight volumes, outcomes, and trends, enabling continuous improvement.   Project Management and Practice Operations Methodologies like Agile and Lean are becoming staples in legal operations, improving quality and productivity. Technology aids in task prioritization, resource allocation, and collaboration, while standard operating procedures ensure consistency. Effective project management and disciplined operations are critical for delivering enterprise value and making informed strategic decisions.   Essential Skills and the Future of the Legal Operations Profession Success in legal operations requires a blend of legal expertise, business acumen, strategic thinking, and interpersonal skills. Professionals in this field understand both the legal landscape and corporate operations, using their vision and data insights to identify opportunities for improvement. By collaborating with diverse stakeholders, they build relationships that drive enterprise success, balancing efficiency with risk management.   The future of legal operations is exceptionally promising. The 2023 ACC Chief Legal Officer Survey highlights this rapid growth, revealing that more than six out of 10 legal departments (61%) employed at least one legal operations professional in 2023—a figure that has nearly tripled since 2015 [1] . As businesses increasingly demand optimized legal services, the value of legal ops professionals skilled in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning will continue to rise. By focusing on operational excellence and data-driven strategic advice, legal operations will play a crucial role in balancing legal obligations with business priorities, ensuring organizational resilience and growth.   Corporate legal operations are about much more than managing the day-to-day legal tasks. It's a strategic function that optimizes legal departments, balances compliance and cost, and drives business success through a focus on people, knowledge, risk, external partnerships, finance, technology, and disciplined operations. As the demand for efficient and effective legal services continues to grow, so too will the importance and influence of legal operations professionals. Tom Stephenson is the Vice President of Community at Legal.io , spearheading operational and growth strategies through community engagement for the fastest-growing legal staffing & ALSP marketplace (60% FAANG & 200+ enterprise teams). His previous roles include Director of Legal Operations at Credit Karma and the first legal operations executive at Teladoc Health, where he played a key growth role while supporting the largest M&A transaction in virtual care history. With over a decade of varied roles within the legal & tech industries, Tom has worked alongside global law firms, Fortune 500 corporations, technology startups, and alternative legal service providers to address issues impacting today's evolving corporate in-house and law firm workplaces. As the founder of the Dear Legal Ops podcast, he shares insights and fosters a sense of empowerment for the next generation of legal & tech professionals. A speaker at Harvard Law School and published author , Tom embodies a lifelong commitment to education, fostering the growth of emerging leaders, and sparking innovations across diverse industries. [1] https://www.acc.com/resource-library/2023-chief-legal-officers-survey

I love to write. I identify as a writer over my “fancier” titles of law professor or lawyer. I journal every morning, engage in legal or academic writing all day, and work on my travel memoir writing   most nights. Writing is one of my four well-being pillars (along with boxing, solo travel, and U2 music). But this doesn’t mean writing comes easily. Actually, it’s the cognitive  struggle  with it that invigorates me. As an introvert, wrestling with ideas, concepts, thoughts—as my pen hits paper or my fingers press laptop keys—helps me vet and test theories and potential solutions to problems  internally  before I’m ready to articulate them aloud. Writing amplifies my voice.   Social media is constantly trying to mess with our writer heads by declaring we’re all nuts if we’re not using Generative AI to write entire books (and all our professional work) in a matter of minutes (or seconds). I don’t want to write my next book at the click of one button. The best part about writing  my books  has been giving myself the gift of packing a suitcase with research materials, traveling to a place where I must immerse in a language other than English, and sitting down to write five pages a day—no days off—until the (messy) first draft is done.   Still, I’m wildly pro-GenAI. Not as a  substitute  for my writing process, but rather a  supplement .   Because I like the challenge—mental, physical, emotional—of laying tracks of a first draft, I don’t outsource that step wholesale to GenAI. Instead, I use the tool to turbo-boost my creativity in choosing specific words when I get stuck. ChatGPT-4o is my  mot juste  maker. My synonym slot machine. My super-thesaurus.   My relationship with ChatGPT started in March 2023 when I decided to untangle my fear that my job as a writing professor was in peril (it’s not!), shook hands with the chatbot, slowly began to introduce myself to it, and let it introduce itself to me. The first writing task I ever gave the chatbot was: “Please write me a motivational paragraph in the imaginary voice of U2’s frontman, Bono, to encourage me to write today.”   Now, ChatGPT-4o serves as my trusty writing sidekick. It plays an essential role in my inventiveness, productivity, and enthusiasm. As I’m drafting, I engage in an ongoing dialogue with my chatbot about words. It’s my thesaurus on steroids.   Here’s what I mean:   Memory Booster   Sometimes, there’s a word on the tip-of-my-tongue I can’t access, or I’m confusing vocabulary in my head. While I can’t type a whole contextual sentence into a regular thesaurus and have it spit out the exact word I seek, GPT-4o is awesome at responding to questions like the following (without making me feel stupid):   ·       What is the round orb-like thing magicians and witches and oracles consult? ·       Who usually wields scepters? ·       Is there a verb that starts with “syn” that means “get in rhythm with a drum”? [Note: There isn’t. I was thinking of  syncopate , but that’s different.] ·       What’s the difference between “iridescence” and “incandescence”?   Instead of stalling my writing for minutes—or sometimes for the day!—while I rack my brain for the elusive term I seek, GenAI gives me quick answers to my often convoluted questions so I can stay in “flow.”   Sounds and Rhyming   If I’m trying to add flair to a sentence through specific sounds, alliteration, or rhyming, I might query:   ·       What are ten words that begin with the letter “f” that mean workable or doable? ·       What are some words similar to phenomena, situations, occurrences, or happenings that begin with the letter “d”? ·       What are some synonyms for “shenanigans” that also begin with the letter “s”? ·       What are some positive three-syllable words that end in “tion”?   Context   GPT-4o is an absolute  boss  at generating synonyms for words in a particular context—much more efficient than slogging through a standard thesaurus and weeding out irrelevant applications. (In fact, GPT-4o taught me that “homographs” are words that are spelled the same but have different meanings and possibly even varied pronunciations.) Check out these examples:   ·       What are some other words for “reading” in the context of tarot? ·       What are some synonyms for “commute” in terms of driving to and from a spot? ·       What are some alternatives for “stared at,” “scrutinized,” or “studied”—in the sense of looking at passersby?   Multiple Words at a Time   If I’ve already exhausted my own brain’s word bank and scrapped three or four terms as not jazzy enough for my sentence, I’ll put all my rejects in a query prompting GPT-4o to suggest options I haven’t already thought of myself—not possible with the usual thesaurus! For instance:   ·       What are some synonyms for message, maxim, slogan, or mantra? ·       What are some alternatives to attire, garb, gear, or wardrobe? ·       What are some slang terms similar to “snag” or “score” or “land” in the context of acquiring tickets to a rock concert? ·       What are some words that mean tension or resistance or bracing for something to happen?   Tone or Degree or Direction   If I desire a word that conveys a particular emotion, attitude, mood, or level of intensity, I’ll ask:   ·       What is a less menacing version of brandishing? ·       What are some ways of describing a smell as metallic but not in a bad way? ·       What are some words that mean imploring or coaxing but imply “unsuccessfully”? ·       What are some light-hearted and non-disrespectful synonyms for meltdown or breakdown or overreaction that begin with the letter “t”? ·       What is a positive version of “meting”?   Is There a Word for This?   Sometimes, I inquire if a word exists for something peculiar I’m trying to name:   ·       What is the outside surface of a sphere called? [GPT gave me a boring answer to this one, but the Sphere in Las Vegas dubbed its exterior surface an “exosphere,” so I adopted that term.] ·       What are the parts of eyeglasses that loop over the ears? ·       Is there a German word for the reverse of  schadenfreud e that means displeasure at someone else’s joy? ·       Is there a verb to describe the mathematical effect of an exponent?   Descriptions   Other times, I’m curious if GPT can help me capture evocative details about a smell, a color, a movement, or a sensation. I’ll probe:   ·       How does oxygen smell? ·       What color is indigo? ·       What are some interesting verbs to describe how octopus legs or jellyfish tentacles undulate? ·       How would you describe the beginning of a vibration?   Vocabulary Gut Check   I have a habit of making up words and usages. Also, I’ll never forget how, when I was thirty years old and had just moved to New York, some famous guy mocked me for getting tongue-twisted and mispronouncing “vigilant” as “viligant.” I have zero qualms about asking my encouraging chatbot sidekick (who will  never  criticize me):   ·       Is a gulley the same as a valley? [ Answer: no ] ·       Does “lobe” refer to a part of a heart? [ Answer: no ] ·       Is syncopy a word? [ It’s not. ] ·       Is rivalrous a word? [ It is. ] ·       Is incant a word? [ Yup! ]   Grammar Gut Check   Similarly, I like using words in weird ways, but if I’m nervous about getting called out by the grammar police, I’ll pose questions like:   ·       Can I use “blemish” as a verb? ·       Can I use “meander” as a noun? ·       Is it three euro or three euros? ·       Does the word lame (as in fabric) have an accent on the “e”? ·       In marcona almonds, is marcona capitalized? ·       Is jacuzzi capitalized? ·       Does Dante have an accent in his name? ·       In this sentence, do I need a comma after the question mark: “‘Is this for sale?’ I asked a woman behind the desk.” [ Answer: no ]   Accuracy   In the same vein, sometimes I want to make sure I’m using a word properly. I’ll check:   ·       Is this the right use of “tallied”: “This walk tallied a solid five miles”? ·       Can I say “I surpassed the chalets” to mean I kept trudging past the chalets to explore another part of a promenade further away? ·       Can I use “depicts” and “diorama” this way in this sentence: “The Lungomare depicts a diorama of Napoletano culture”? ·       Can I say “I roiled with bad dreams”? ·       What are some other ways to describe tripe? Can I say entrails? Or is that not accurate? ·       Can I call the city of Ercolano in Italy a “hamlet”?   Using GPT-4o in this way is fun. I don’t feel like I’m cheating or taking shortcuts in honing my craft. Instead, I feel inspired. I don’t lose momentum as often. I stay in “flow” longer. Paragraphs and pages accumulate. GenAI helps me write  more  original text,   not less.   Author Rick Rubin wrote, “The best work is the work you are excited about.” For me, finding that perfect word to pull a thought from my brain and imprint it upon paper—like a fingerprint—is exciting.   I can’t wait to read your thought fingerprints too.   Professor Heidi K. Brown is Associate Dean for Upper Level Writing at New York Law School. She teaches legal writing and designs workshops, courses, and curricula around “writer identity formation,” including incorporating GenAI tools into writers’ workflow. She is the author of  The Introverted Lawyer ,  Untangling Fear in Lawyering , and  The Flourishing Lawyer . For more, check out  www.theflourishinglawyer.org  or email Heidi at  heidi.brown@nyls.edu .

First, Microsoft Word does not actually have a feature called Paragraph Glue. That’s just an umbrella term I use to describe two (sticky) features. The first (Keep With Next) will hold one or more paragraphs together on a page; and the second (Keep Lines Together) will hold the lines of a particular paragraph together on a page. To the extent you’re wondering why you haven’t seen the buttons for these features, well that’s because there aren’t any buttons for them. Welcome to Microsoft Word! Important functions a legal user would likely need in just about any document are often concealed. However, that doesn’t mean they are inaccessible. The following is a description of these features, when they’re appropriate to use, and how to utilize them. Keep With Next: Let’s begin with an explanation of the problem this feature resolves. In the screenshot below, you see a very common issue in legal documents which I’d refer to as an awkward page break. I would obviously want paragraph 2.3 to move to the top of page 3 and not be marooned at the bottom of the page 2. Unfortunately, most users try to resolve this issue by adding hard returns (Enter key) or page breaks above the title. To be clear, that technique is only a temporary fix and you should never use that technique again if that’s your typical approach. The problem with those faux fixes is that if the document undergoes further editing and more text is added or deleted above it, you’re likely going to have to remove those hard returns or page breaks later or you’ll end up with gaps/blank pages in your document. You may be thinking, “well I only do that when the document is finalized - so I don’t have to worry about further editing.” Respectfully, that’s still not a valid defense because almost all new documents in law offices are created from existing documents (as templates). Thus, it’s likely that the document you finalized today may be used as a template at some future date, in which case it will undergo further editing. When that happens, the latent defect you created in the original document is likely to show itself.  A superior way to deal with this is to simply glue paragraph 2.3 in the foregoing example to any subsequent paragraph so you don’t have to worry about it again and you don’t have to add any hard returns or page breaks. To utilize this feature, you should not select paragraphs 2.3 and (a) although that would seem a logical first step. Instead, you want to focus solely on the paragraph/title/heading you want to glue to a subsequent paragraph. Simply right-click the paragraph/title (Holdover in this case)  choose Paragraph from the menu that appears  click the Line and Page Breaks tab at the top of the subsequent dialog  check Keep with next  click OK.  You don’t want to select paragraphs 2.3 and sub (a) before right-clicking is because that will glue paragraph 2.3 to (a), and subparagraph (a) to subparagraph (b). If you glue too much text together, I guarantee you’ll start seeing bizarre page breaks in your document. So a little glue is good, but you don’t want it on everything or you’ll have a whole new formatting issue to resolve (random gaps and inexplicable page breaks). As such, you need to be surgical in your application of this feature, and be careful not to apply it where you don’t actually need it.  Keep Lines Together: This is a slightly different type of glue compared to Keep With Next. In this case, you’re not glueing one paragraph to another, you just want to hold the lines of a particular paragraph together. For example, you would not want a page break to occur in the middle of the highlighted paragraph below.  If you work with footnotes, you may have also seen Word decide to split a footnoteacross multiple pages(and I’ve still never met anyone who wanted one footnote split across multiple pages). This feature solves(and I’ve still never met anyone whowanted one footnote split across multiple pages)that problem as well. If you want to hold the lines of a paragraph together on a page, simply right-click the paragraph/title (holdover in this case), choose Paragraph from the menu that appears, click the Line and Page Breaks tab at the top of the subsequent dialog - check keep page with next - then click OK. Using Both Features Together : "Using Both Features Together: It is often appropriate to use both types of glue together on a block of text. For example, in the foregoing acknowledgment, I want the state and county to stick to the “Be it remembered…” paragraph, I want the lines of the paragraph in the middle stuck together on a page "and I want the paragraph to also adhere to the signature blank for the Notary. As such, I would select/block the entire acknowledgement - right click - paragraph - check both Keep with Next and Keep lines together - click OK. After doing that, the entire acknowledgement will move as a unit and stay together on a page. Make These Features Easier to Access : Interestingly, you  can  add buttons for thesefeatures to the Quick Access Toolbar or even the main ribbon. How to do that is beyond the scope of this article, but if you already know how to add custom buttons to Word, be advised that although the features are called Keep with next and Keep lines together , the buttons for them are called Para keep with next and Para keep lines together , respectively. If you think it’s ridiculous that Microsoft would alphabetize features that begin with “k” under the letter “p,” well, join the club. Barron K. Henley , a founding partner of Affinity Consulting Group, is a legal technology expert with a diverse background. After practicing law from 1993 to 1997, he transitioned to providing technology services for lawyers. At Affinity, Henley leads the document assembly/automation and software training departments, specializing in automating complex documents using platforms like HotDocs and Contract Express. He conducts technology audits, assists in launching new law firms, and delivers engaging continuing legal education seminars across the US and Canada on technology, practice management, and ethics. Beyond his professional endeavors, Henley is deeply involved in the legal community. He's a Fellow of the College of Law Practice Management and the American Bar Foundation, a member of the Ohio Supreme Court Commission on Technology and the Courts, and Co-Chair of the ABA Joint Law Practice Management Group. Personally, Henley is an enthusiastic cook, preparing all meals for his family at home. He enjoys outdoor activities like hiking and biking with his wife and dog, and has a passion for smart home technology. Despite describing himself as "always in a hurry," he proudly maintains a clean driving record of 37 years.

Introduction In the rapidly evolving landscape of LegalOps, the relevance of integrating advanced methodologies to drive efficiency and innovation has never been more apparent. LegalOps is a much-needed new paradigm that is finding its voice. LegalOps teams, with their unique blend of change management expertise, business analysis, process improvement, legal engineering, legal technology, and now, innovation specialists, particularly with the urgent integration of AI, are defining what it means to deliver legal services effectively. As such, LegalOps roles between organisations differ widely because of the need to straddle these disciplines (I am yet to find a job description which doesn’t require a blend of skills) and great work is being carried out globally to stratify and define roles and responsibilities. We want the same thing One thing that has been evident from the outset and from my experience working in Legal Operations for several years is: the desire to make an impact .  This desire is shared by the profession, which is why I (much like Colin) know I belong here. The impact we seek in LegalOps is sometimes crudely framed as a drive for increased profitability-or as many LegalOps teams are regarded as a cost-center-greater efficiency.  Through an altruistic lens, impact can mean greater access-to-justice.  Holistically it extends to the well-being of the lawyers we serve and by extension providing greater outcomes for our clients. The impact I  seek is rooted in a moral obligation to do better : we can, therefore we should. In my own search for strategies to create impact, my curiosity met with serendipity and I was introduced to the methodologies and frameworks of Implementation Science .  I hope to show in this article what can be learned from research rooted in public health which is increasingly (and empirically) helping professionals and the communities they serve deliver and assess impact . What is Implementation Science? Implementation Science arose as a response to the gap between medical and health-related innovations and their practical application, engaging professionals and researchers from healthcare, public health, and social services. Implementation Science is used to improve the application of evidence-based practices and innovations with the goal to enhance outcomes (make an impact) by ensuring that effective interventions are not only developed but also correctly implemented and sustained  in real-world settings. The discipline has grown on its own merits to show value in other fields such as business, education, change management, process optimization, and stakeholder engagement. Enhancing LegalOps I’m conscious that my journey into LegalOps may reveal my naivety, as experienced change management professionals will readily find common ground here.  However, the LegalOps industry will only grow at the necessary speed required by encouraging and welcoming people from a wide range of backgrounds – not just lawyers and paralegals, but professionals from other industries like software engineers, marketers and data scientists. As a lawyer (I’m still a lawyer even if regrettably referred to as a ‘non-lawyer’ if working in business services by some firms), I naturally gravitate towards the precision of language and syntax as tools of delivery. I have discovered that by looking at the language  of Implementation Science we can draw parallels and borrow ideas to augment our approach to delivering impact.  And, as a lawyer, there is a strong caveat  to my opinion in that this does not mean we need to start again—consider this progressive enhancement . There are a number of established methodologies and frameworks which provide strategies for delivery which have strong correlation and sometimes direct overlap with change management in a business context.  In the sections that follow, I will delve deeper into Implementation Science, illustrating how its principles can be directly applied to the challenges and opportunities within LegalOps today.  Key Principles of Implementation Science The field of implementation science systematically aims to bridge the 'know-do gap'—the disconnect between existing knowledge and practical application—by identifying and overcoming the barriers that impede the adoption of proven health interventions and evidence-based practices.  Similarly, in Legal Operations, there is a distinct need to close the gap that exists between both existing and emerging legal technologies and their practical implementation within legal departments. The key principles of Implementation Science are: (a) the use of evidence-based practices; (b) understanding and adapting to context; (c) engaging stakeholders throughout the process; (d) developing and supporting capacity for change; (e) employing iterative cycles of implementation; (f) evaluating progress continuously; (g) ensuring sustainability and (f) dissemination of knowledge. These pillars collectively guide the successful integration of knowledge into practical, real-world  applications to ensure effective and sustainable outcomes.  After all, long term impact is critical to justify the very real investment law firms are making to our profession. Interventions vs Initiatives A quick note on "interventions". This term is used frequently (but not exclusively) in Implementation Science owing to its place in healthcare settings. The analogous term in Legal Operations, in my opinion, is "initiatives," which encompasses a variety of strategic efforts and programs aimed at improving legal processes, integrating new technologies, and enhancing overall efficiency and effectiveness within legal departments. These initiatives are structured and targeted actions (just like interventions) designed to address the challenges and opportunities in law. Now—back to the pillars. a)    Evidence-Based Practice Implementation Science prioritizes the use of interventions that are supported by strong empirical research and evidence. This principle ensures that the strategies and practices implemented are not only theoretically sound but have also been proven effective in practical applications. In Legal Operations, this means understanding ‘what we know works’.  So how do we determine what actually  drives value in legal services delivery when we are in the midst of exploring what’s possible with new technologies and AI and adopting mature best-practices from other professions such as Finance, Marketing and Accounting? In the absence of scientific research, here are some places to look: -        Internal case studies from other departments : draw upon success and best practices in other teams and draw parallels to form your sector strategy. -       External success from other firms in your peer network : Benchmark against other organizations within your industry to identify effective practices and technologies that have contributed to their success. (This does require transparency and openness which I will address later). -  Industry insights : Regularly review literature from thought leaders and industry-specific research that discuss trends, case studies, and best practices. -  Feedback from stakeholders:  Gather insights directly from clients, staff (particularly at the coal-face), and other key stakeholders to understand their needs and the effectiveness of current practices. -  Professional networks and conferences : Engage with professionals at industry conferences or through professional networks to learn about innovative practices and real-world results. We are fortunate to have a growing number of dedicated events where we can connect and learn – adjust your budgets accordingly!   b)      Contextual Adaptation In Implementation Science, the principle of contextual adaptation is central to the successful integration of change efforts. This principle acknowledges that each intervention must be customized to align with the specific cultural, organizational, and environmental contexts of the setting where it is being applied.  Implementation Science differentiates between two contexts: inner and outer. -         Inner context  refers to factors internal to the organization, such as the prevailing culture, governance structures, available resources, and the existing skill sets. These elements can significantly influence how an intervention is received, implemented, and sustained. For example, an organization with a strong culture of innovation and teamwork may more readily adopt new health interventions compared to one with a rigid, hierarchical structure. The inner context in LegalOps might include the department’s strategic alignment with the broader corporate goals (mergers and consolidation in the market impede this), the technology infrastructure in place (particularly across offices), and the staff's willingness to embrace new processes or technologies. For example, a corporate or litigation department that is well-versed in using advanced analytics and / or AI or contract analysis or e-Discovery will be more adept at integrating and capitalizing on new legal tech solutions. -         Outer context  involves external factors that impact the organization, including regulatory requirements, technological advancements, economic conditions, and broader social and cultural trends. These elements can either facilitate or hinder the adoption and success of interventions. For instance, changes in healthcare policy or funding can drastically affect the implementation of new medical practices or treatments.  This is never more apparent than with changes in political leadership at the very top of government.    The outer context for LegalOps could include changes in legal regulations (I’m looking at you GDPR), evolving industry standards and expectations (data-driven decision making, remote working and paperless offices) and general market conditions that influence legal practices. Stakeholder Engagement Implementation Science stresses the importance of involving all relevant stakeholders in the planning, execution, and evaluation of interventions. This includes practitioners, clients, policymakers, and community members. One of the primary barriers in LegalOps is resistance to change .  For example, despite widespread agreement on the merits of fixed-fees, adoption is slow and uneven both between firms and across departments.  Lawyers are unfairly tarred with being rigid and considered to be skeptical of new technology.  I don’t believe that is the case anymore, likely there are barriers to innovation in the inner context rather than in lawyers intrinsically. The main barriers to impact are two-fold: finding the time to innovate and knowing what to do. In LegalOps, facilitating stakeholder engagement is pivotal for the successful implementation of new initiatives and technologies. In order to do this, we should actively plan and engage with the following concepts: 1.      A Clear, Well-Defined Discovery Process:  The initial step in LegalOps often involves a discovery process to identify the specific needs and pain points of all stakeholders. Just like in Implementation Science, it sets a foundation for accurate problem definition, assessing readiness to change, identification of high impact  initiatives and anticipating potential barriers—paving the way for smoother implementation and adoption.   2.      Feedback Loop : Continuous feedback from stakeholders provides insights into how well the initiatives are working and what adjustments may be necessary. You should expect to course-correct and fine tune often. Share that expectation early.   3.      Win   Hearts and Minds : Adoption of new practices requires more than just acknowledgment from stakeholders­—it requires their enthusiastic support and active participation. LegalOps must work to win over the stakeholders by clearly communicating the benefits and potential early impact of initiatives. We can humanize our successes and attach real people to real progress -- leveraging all measures of impact to secure buy-in. 4.      Develop a Culture of Innovation : We could debate whether culture beats strategy. Both are important.  Strategy sets the roadmap for innovation whereas culture  is the willingness to go on the journey.  Cultivating an environment that encourages experimentation (e.g. safe places to explore, particularly with AI) and supports new ideas is vital. This comes from the top (that’s where the buy-in becomes important) where leaders empower staff to be creative, actively valuing or incentivizing experimentation, knowing that their efforts here are just as valuable as their billable hours. c)       Capacity Building For Implementation Science, building the capabilities of individuals and organizations to implement and sustain new practices effectively involves training, providing resources, and creating supportive infrastructures. For LegalOps to thrive, it's essential to provide access to training that extends the skills of each team member according to their unique career backgrounds and current roles. A tailored approach to skill development is particularly important in a field as interdisciplinary as Legal Operations, where team members come from diverse professional backgrounds. For example, lawyers transitioning into LegalOps roles may require additional training in technical skills such as data analytics, procurement or software development to effectively manage and leverage legal technologies. Conversely, developers or engineers who move into LegalOps might need to enhance their understanding of legal processes, compliance requirements, or develop business analyst skills to better align technological solutions with legal needs. A tip for smaller teams: where specialization is less feasible due to lower headcount, each member should have a broad set of skills that allow for flexibility and adaptability. For larger teams, specialized roles can be filled by individuals with deep expertise in a specific area, whereas smaller teams rely on each member's ability to perform multiple functions. Engaging with agencies can bridge the knowledge gap,capacity limits and the need for ongoing technical assistance.   Extending culture to capacity building looks like encouragement from-the-top for dedicated time for lawyers. This commitment should be reflected in strategy (for lawyers and LegalOps team members) through access to learning resources, mentorship programs, and opportunities for practical application of new skills. d)      Iterative Process Implementation science promotes the use of iterative and cyclical processes that include continuous testing, feedback, and refinement of strategies. This adaptive approach allows for adjustments to be made in response to what is learned during the implementation process itself . In Legal Operations, employing iterative, cyclical processes might look like: starting from a software trial or minimal viable product (MVP) and evolving through cycles of continuous testing, feedback, and refinement until full release or roll-out. Managing stakeholder expectations through these stages can be challenging depending on whether you are putting out a fire of unprofitability or building a boat to sail to new markets. Unlike Implementation Science, where there is a proven methodology backed by research that’s gone through a rigorous selection criteria, LegalOps is, to some extent, building-the-plane-on-the-runway. Sunk-cost fallacy has an opportunity cost in LegalOps that can do irreparable damage.  The ability to pivot, even after substantial investment, is the sign of a healthy LegalOps team. e)       Integrated Evaluation Closely linked to iterative processes, continuous evaluation  in Implementation Science involves regular monitoring of outcomes and processes to assess their effectiveness. Continuous evaluation identifies areas for improvement and refinement to the ongoing implementation process. A key component of this approach in LegalOps is the identification and implementation of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These KPIs should be thoughtfully selected to what matters: we must look deeper than direct revenue as firms should account for employee turnover, resistance to market cycles and maintaining a competitive advantage. That being said, quantitative metrics from tracking the turnaround time for legal documents to assessing the accuracy and impact of legal advice are good places to start. How do we monitor these KPIs?  -       LegalOps teams need to establish robust mechanisms for collecting both qualitative and quantitative data. This might involve integrating legal technology tools that can automate data capture and streamline data analysis processes.  Choose your vendors wisely as limited access to the data within a platform can restrict meaningful evaluation.  -   Engaging with data scientists or specialists in legal analytics is another critical step. Being able to sift through the data to elicit valuable insights is the best way to understand the factors influencing performance and uncover potential areas for improvement.   f)       Sustainability There is a focus in Implementation Science for the long-term sustainability of the intervention. This involves appraisal of factors like funding, resource allocation, and integration into existing systems to ensure that the practices can be maintained over time after the initial implementation phase. In Legal Operations, this means that from the very beginning, there should be a focus on ensuring that any new systems, processes, or technologies are not only implemented successfully but are also viable and effective in the long term. This is really hard. The ability to experiment, pivot and ditch remains paramount. The key to sustainability in LegalOps is, then, considering factors such as funding (get your budgets confirmed for tech spend), resource allocation (hire accordingly and allow time for lawyers to engage), and integration into existing systems (know your API capabilities). g)     Dissemination of Knowledge The goal of dissemination is to spread knowledge and the associated evidence-based interventions to those who can usefully apply them in practice. Through publishing research in academic journals, presenting findings at conferences and contributing to policy briefs, researchers makes waves as ideas are spread and adopted. Something wonderful is happening in Legal Operations. There is a collaborative approach which fosters a global community where we move forward together, benefiting the entire legal sector rather than just individual firms. It counters the zero-sum game law firms have traditionally played which may make it uncomfortable for those who relied on gatekeeping or opaqueness for their competitive advantage. On LinkedIn you might learn how one firm successfully integrated a new document automation tool.  Or at a conference you might have a workshop on the technical aspects of an AI comparison tool. This openness does raise the question: what is our USP as a law firm?  I have ideas around that (it involves empathy) for another article.  However, being part of the-change-we-seek as a body means that we are driving with both hands on the wheel rather than being spoon-fed by oligopolies towards techno-feudalism.   Conclusions I hope by delving deeper into the specific language and pillars of Implementation Science, you have (like me) gained insights that augment change management approaches and give you a map you can translate towards impact. Where do you go from here? There are four key take-aways you can apply today to your initiatives. 1.      Adopt an Evidence-Based Approach:  LegalOps, regrettably, does not yet have an army of researchers (although universities and institutions are closing that gap) therefore we must create and share our own evidence.  Be methodical, write your hypothesis, analyze the data and make decisions not on a whim but with data or performance metrics. 2.      Emphasize Contextual Adaptation:  Tailor strategies and technologies to the unique cultural, organizational, and technological environment shaping  each legal department’s innerworkings. 3.      Enhance Stakeholder Engagement : Actively involve all relevant stakeholders—from senior management to frontline staff—in the planning, execution, and evaluation of new initiatives. Make sure your working groups are not only partner-led or driven by only a few senior associates. Use strategies from Implementation Science such as workshops, feedback sessions, and inclusive decision-making processes to build consensus and encourage buy-in throughout the organization. 4.      Track your numbers: Implement continuous evaluation mechanisms to track the effectiveness of new initiatives. Establish clear metrics with KPIs and qualitative feedback that align with the desired outcomes of each project.  Build your reporting dashboards and give your stakeholders a voice. Finally, raise your own voice by participating in and engaging with the communities shaping Legal Operations: ●     Legal Ops Career Path : a UK based initiative to create a defined career path for legal operations professionals in order to create a market standard role structure and pay bands. ● CLOC : The Corporate Legal Operations Consortium (CLOC) is a global community of experts focused on redefining the business of law. ●  IILOP : International Institute of Legal Operations Professionals (IILOP) is a new platform which provides training, certification, and continuing professional development for legal operations professionals. ●    Legal Ops Uncensored : a global community with a forum and in-person events whose mission is to create a safe space where our members can build community throughout all phases of their career in legal operations and legal technology. Jay Smith is a qualified lawyer, legal engineer, developer and founder. He has worked with both fast-growth and global law firms around legal technology and legal operations, holding Head of Legal Operations and Senior Legal Operations manager roles. A technologist at heart, Jay uses his knowledge of software engineering, product management alongside his legal expertise to build, design and implement systems to improve legal service delivery.

Daniel B. Rodriguez is the Harold Washington Professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and served as dean of the Law School from January 2012 through August 2018. Professor Rodriguez has taught full-time at several law schools including the University of Texas-Austin, the University of San Diego (where he also served as dean), and at the University of California, Berkeley. He has also been a visiting professor at Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, USC, and Virginia.   His scholarship and teaching spans a wide range of topics in public law, including administrative law, local government law, constitutional law, and property.  He is also deeply interested in the law-business-technology interface.   A graduate of California State University Long Beach and the Harvard Law School, Professor Rodriguez has served as the Chair of the ABA Center for Innovation, a member of the ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services, as the President of the Association of American Law Schools, and chair of the AALS Deans’ Steering Committee. He is presently a council member of the American Law Institute and also a member of various task forces working on access to justice issues.   How do you envision the role of technology evolving in legal education, and what steps should law schools take to prepare future lawyers for this changing landscape?   I think there is a “present” and a “future” element here that I would separate to make the broader point that we will need to do a better job as legal educators and as law school leaders to ensure that our students will have all the tools and to exposed to the many perspectives essential to understanding and using technology to practice law at the highest level and further justice.    On the “present,” we are witnessing  a tremendously active and energetic burst of tech-related education in law schools, the likes of which I do believe are unique in the 30+ years I have been in law teaching.  For example, there are courses on technology-enabled research – most of which move beyond the use and utility of the traditional tools such as Lexis & Westlaw and consider how Google has impacted research, and how large databases have given lawyers information to analyze cases, regulations, and statutes and, significantly, augmented our ability to predict legal outcomes.  To take just one example from many, the ODR (online dispute resolution) movement has created the need for understanding how these technologies work to aid and even undertake decision-making as an alternative to traditional adjudicatory models.  There are many other examples.   On the cutting edge of this is generative AI, including the fast-moving emergence of Chat GPT and other kinds of technology that utilize LLMs (large language models) to not only aid research and analysis, but to contribute direct information and even modalities of advocacy.  Many schools – and within a couple of years I would predict most law schools – provide education in generative AI.  Some do this through stand-alone courses on AI & Machine learning and its applicability to law & legal practice.  Other law schools are embedding this education in traditional law school courses.  Ultimately, law schools are wisely figuring out ways of ensuring that students are getting contemporary, relevant, and even essential instruction in what they will need to be successful lawyers and leaders in this third decade of our 21st century.  And so, in summary, I am enthusiastic and rather bullish about what law schools are doing to improve tech-related legal education.  At the same time, we need to continue to press the envelope, to activate and incentivize legal educators and other decisionmakers to ensure that these strategies become, if not already, a priority in our curriculum.  It is not extra; it is essential.   How do you see recent technological advancements influencing the study and practice of public law?   As to the study, we can see how technology can enrich our understanding of how political institutions shape and implement public policy.  A few examples: To study the practice of statutory interpretation, legal technology, including LLMs and other methods, can assist us in searching for how particular phrases and terms have been enacted into law and have been interpreted by courts and agencies. Lexis/Westlaw, for all its virtues, was less useful for this purpose, but new methods have really enhanced all this.  Another example:  Now that the Supreme Court and many lower courts have put a stake in the ground in favor of so-called originalist methods of interpretation, the role and salience of historical research has moved to the fore.  Technology is being used to assist in dense historical research, not only in searching for comments by legislators and other political officials, but for filling out the context in which critical debates happened and decisions were made.  This doesn’t replace the human touch in doing careful historical research, but it is undoubtedly an aid for historians, legal scholars, and teachers.   As to the practice, we are seeing federal and stage government agencies relying on insights and tools from technological developments to improve public policy.  For example, governments are frequently developing and employing algorithms to make various decisions more efficient and error-proof, in variegated areas such as sentencing and government benefits administration.  Algorithmic decision-making is not without its challenges to be sure, but the genie having come out of the bottle, we will surely see continuing use of new tools along these lines to improve policymaking and implementation – in ways not unlike its balanced use in health care.  Another example is the use of tech-enabled decision-making – sometimes called, if hyperbolically, “robot judges.”  When used to augment human decision-making, more automated modes of adjudication is tremendously valuable in administering justice in a way more fair and efficient for both the government and for ordinary citizens. Indeed, it is critical to further develop these tools in areas of huge backlogs and what has been called “high volume/low value adjudication.”  This development, what the legal futurist Richard Susskind has labelled “online judging,” is enormously interesting and important. What technological innovations do you believe hold the most promise for transforming the delivery of legal services, and what are the potential challenges in adopting these technologies?   If I had to pick a couple, I would say, echoing some of my earlier comments, I would first say that the use of technology that helps assist ordinary citizens who cannot afford lawyers seek and obtain justice is the single most important domain and a promising one.  Entrepreneurs in this space have developed myriad tools, including chat-bots, legal check-ups, court navigators, document retrieval and guidance mechanisms, and others, that share in common the aspiration of reducing the barriers to justice access, which has historically been a mix of complexity and cost.  Frankly, what stands in the way of an even greater use of such technologies is not the tech and not even the financial funding, but regulatory barriers that interfere with the deployment of such technologies on the grounds, which I believe are more often dubious than persuasive, that tech-enabled assistance constitutes the “unauthorized practice of law.”  In short, we will need regulatory reform to remove the friction that keeps ordinary citizens from technologies that will help close the serious access to justice problem in the U.S.   The other innovation would be generative AI, as I mentioned previously.  We are early in the history of this tool and we can perhaps scarcely imagine the many ways in which ever-more-sophisticated generative AI tools can transform the delivery of legal services.  Using a tool such as Chat GPT to help craft compelling legal arguments and to answer questions that require rapid access to information can, when used responsibly, enhance the efficiency of lawyers, reduce barriers to access to justice, and, we hope, improve the quality of legal decisions.  After all, let’s remember that the essential meaning of artificial intelligence is the use of tech tools (think especially here of tools that are computational in the broad sense of that term) to do things more quickly and effectively than human decisionmakers, the latter of whom are ultimately limited in fundamental ways.  To the extent that we can employ generative AI to improve human decision-making, then progress is quite promising.   The challenges are many.  First, we need to understand well the contents of these technologies, and the brutal truth is that a fairly small sliver of the population, and generally not including lawyers, really understand in any depth and detail how these technologies “work.”  There is a black box quality to many law-relevant technologies, and it will be important for lawyers and others in the law space (including judges!) to get their heads around these technologies, at at least the level necessary to assess their utility, diagnose the challenges, and improve them.  Second, there are some familiar ethical issues, which I will discuss more in my answer to the next question.  Finally, there can be inequalities in how technology is made available and deployed.  Right now, ChatGPT is basically given away for free, but that won’t be true forever.  There are already gates being created around certain technologies – maybe call this the “landlording of technology” – that can create a system of haves and have nots.  If we truly want to use technology to democratize legal decision-making and improve access to justice, we will need to figure out how best to deal with economic considerations and various barriers to entry.  I honestly don’t have any great wise answers to these challenges, but I just mention them as examples of challenges we will need to earnestly tackle. What are the key ethical considerations that must be addressed as technology becomes more integrated into legal practice, especially regarding client data privacy and the impartiality of AI in legal decision-making?   I cannot speak with any special knowledge about client data privacy, so I will leave that to the experts, so let me focus on the impartiality part of your question.  First, it is important, as I always say to my students and to colleagues, to look at impartiality through a “compared to what” lens.  Yes, there are issues of algorithmic bias that stem from various imperfections in how data is scraped and formed into algorithms.  But whatever level and severity is this kind of bias, it must be compared to the biases that humans have, including in legal decision-making.  Humans have various prejudices; they also can be subject to noxious external influences; they have various cognitive limitations; and they have other human frailties (e.g., they are busy, they get tired, they get sick, etc.).  We know that these issues interfere with “objective” decision-making.  This is partly why there is pressure to develop more automated mechanisms of decision-making.  While this is no excuse for letting algorithmic bias to persist, it is important not to let the best be the enemy of the good.  We should work hard to reduce and even eliminate algorithmic bias and other impediments to the ideal of impartiality in legal decision-making.  But we should acknowledge that imperfect automation may in some instances be an improvement on deeply flawed legal judgment. How can legal institutions and professional bodies better support and foster innovation at the intersection of law and technology?   By not imposing regulatory barriers and burdens that make it harder, and sometimes impossible, to use technology to improve justice and to foster better legal decision-making.  This is a message for regulatory entities, such as state bars; it is also a message for a national organization such as the American Bar Association, an organization that has done obviously valuable work in improving the welfare of lawyers and in advancing the cause of the rule of law but, where innovation and technology is concerned, has often lagged behind.  The ABA could be part of a collective solution; it should, at the very least, be not an obstacle to progress.   So far as other institutions in the law space are concerned (AALS, ALI, other groups), they can continue to use their bully pulpit to push for innovations that will improve access to justice and enhance legal education to ensure that the next generation of lawyers and allied legal professionals will be able to do great work in the legal space.  As to law reform groups, such as the ALI and the Uniform Laws Commission, they should assist us by their measured work in improving the legal regime so as to foster excellent use of technology – “excellence” here being used in the broadest sense of the term.   Lastly, these groups can also assist by proposing and enacting the guardrails that will ensure that some of the more troubling (real or potential) elements of technology can be ameliorated.  This is important, too, to ensure that we are using technology in the most responsible ways possible.