Author: TSA Press

The

Wall
Street
Journal
recently

ran
a
story
that
might
surprise
those
who
view
entrepreneurship
as
a
young
person’s
game. 
Turns
out,
70-somethings
are
launching
new
businesses
at
record
rates.
Nearly
30
percent
of
employed
Americans
over
70
now
work
for
themselves
—
double
the
share
of
those
in
their
60s.

So
why
not
law?
Why
couldn’t
that
same
spirit
of
reinvention
take
hold
among
senior
attorneys?

Consider
the
context. 
At
large
firms,
many
lawyers
in
their
60s
and
70s
are
being

eased
out
by
mandatory
retirement
policies. 
Others
begin
to
feel
that
life’s
too
short
to
defend
policies
or
causes
they
don’t
believe
in. 
Yet
as
older
lawyers
depart
the
work
force,
decades
of
valuable
experience,
judgment,
and
relationships
are
being
left
on
the
sidelines. 
And
those
qualities
are
exactly
what
make
older
lawyers
perfect
candidates
for
law
firm
ownership. 

Already,
older
lawyers
already
have
the
assets
that
younger
founders
are
still
scrambling
to
build. 
That
includes
a
network
that
spans
industries,
a
reputation
that
opens
doors,
and
the
confidence
that
comes
from
having
weathered
cycles
of
boom,
bust,
and
burnout.
Plus
many
older
lawyers
are
financially
secure,
with
mortgages
and
children’s
college
tuition
in
the
rearview
mirror.

Even
better,
the
practice
opportunities
are
wide
open
to
serve
clients
with
a
similar
background
–
and
who
are
likely
to
feel
more
comfortable
around
a
lawyer
who
looks
like
them. 
Potential
practice
areas
include:

• 
  Estate
  planning
  and
  elder
  law
  align
  naturally
  with
  older
  lawyers’
  stage
  of
  life
  and
  the
  client
  base
  –
  
  the
  majority
  of
  who
  don’t
  complete
  estate
  planning
  until
  the
  ages
  of
  55-64.
• 
  “Silver
  divorce”
  cases
  —
  couples
  separating
  after
  decades
  together
  —
  call
  for
  empathy
  and
  realism
  that
  only
  life
  experience
  provides.
• 
  Later-in-Life
  entrepreneurs
  like
  those
  featured
  in
  the
  
  Journal
  article
  will
  need
  small
  business
  lawyers
  to
  draft
  up
  corporate
  documents
  and
  business
  agreements.
• 
  Fiduciary
  disputes,
  financial
  elder
  abuse,
  and
  age
  discrimination
  are
  rising
  issues
  where
  seasoned
  counsel
  can
  make
  a
  difference.
• 
  Independent
  mediation
  and
  arbitration
  services
  offer
  a
  path
  for
  attorneys
  with
  decades
  of
  experience
  in
  family
  law,
  commercial
  litigation
  or
  regulatory
  practice
  tov1
  apply
  their
  skills
  to
  resolve
  disputes
  rather
  than
  initiate
  them.
• 
  Consulting
  niches
  —
  ethics,
  trial
  strategy,
  negotiation,
  or
  mentoring
  younger
  lawyers
  —
  allow
  you
  to
  monetize
  what
  you
  know
  without
  carrying
  a
  heavy
  caseload. 
  In
  fact,
  the 
  
  Journal
  article
  featured
  trial
  lawyer
  Judson
  Graves
  who
  teamed
  up
  with
  an
  actor
  to
  produce
  online
  CLEs
  on
  entertaining
  trial
  performance
  through
  
  Judson
  Squared.

Meanwhile,
the
emergence
of
generative
AI
promises
to
mitigate
many
age-related
concerns
about
older
lawyers’
mental
acuity,
stamina,
and
tech
competence
(a

2023
study
showed
that
73%
of
Oklahoma
lawyers
disciplined
are
over
50
years
old).
AI
is
intuitive
for
most
lawyers
to
use
and
can
tackle
much
of
the
repetitive
drudge
work
that
older
lawyers
struggle
with. 
Older
lawyers
have
the
added
advantage
of
experience
which
enables
them
to
spot
hallucinated
or
suspicious
AI
output
more
capably
than
newer
lawyers.

Like
“That
70s
Show,”
a
70-something

solo
by
choice
sounds
like
a
sitcom. 
But
it’s
really
a
reboot
—
where
you
finally
get
to
write
the
script.
You’ve
already
lived
the
first
few
seasons
of
your
career.
You’ve
seen
what
works,
what
doesn’t,
and
what
actually
matters.
The
70s
don’t
have
to
be
an
ending.
They
can
be
the
decade
where
you
take
everything
you’ve
learned
and
finally
practice
law
the
way
you
always
wanted
to.

Carolyn
Elefant
is
one
of
the
country’s
most
recognized
advocates
for
solo
and
small
firm
lawyers.
She
founded
MyShingle.com
in
2002,
the
longest-running
blog
for
solo
practitioners,
where
she
has
published
thousands
of
articles,
resources,
and
guides
on
starting,
running,
and
growing
independent
law
practices.
She
is
the
author
of
Solo
by
Choice,
widely
regarded
as
the
definitive
handbook
for
launching
and
sustaining
a
law
practice,
and
has
spoken
at
countless
bar
events
and
legal
conferences
on
technology,
innovation,
and
regulatory
reform
that
impacts
solos
and
smalls.
Elefant
also
develops
practical
tools
like
the AI
Teach-In to
help
small
firms
adopt
AI
and
she
consistently
champions
reforms
to
level
the
playing
field
for
independent
lawyers.
Alongside
this
work,
she
runs
the
Law
Offices
of
Carolyn
Elefant,
a
national
energy
and
regulatory
practice
that
handles
selective
complex,
high-stakes
matters.

The
12^th
annual

Relativity
Fest
kicked
off
this
week
in
Chicago
before
over
1,800
attendees.
Lots
of
announcements,
the
most
significant
of
which
was
that
starting
in
early
2026,
the
Relativity

aiR
for
Review
and

aiR
for
Privilege
products
will
be
included
in
the
standard
Relativity
One
package
and
pricing.
The
accompanying
press
release
announcing
the
change
describes
these
tools
as
“generative
AI
solutions
for
legal
review.”

In
other
words,
what
were
previously
only
obtainable
by
paying
a
separate
and
additional
charge
will
now
essentially
be
free
for
Relativity
customers.

Why
Is
This
Important?

This
is
important
because
so
many
vendors
try
to
create
AI
programs
and
then
charge
separately
for
them
to
generate
revenue.
Many
of
these
products
are
already
expensive
and
adding
an
AI
surcharge
can
place
them
out
of
reach
for
many
practitioners.
And
the
idea
that
there
are
separate
charges
for
the
state-of-the-art
products
feels
like
nickel
and
diming
that
does
little
more
than
breed
mistrust.

Yet
these
products
can
save
thousands
of
dollars
and
countless
hours
and
are
valuable.
Many
AI
tools
do
little
more
than
make
the
rich
richer,
providing
an
advantage
to
the
large
firms
that
can
afford
state-of-the-art
tools.
 Offering
the
review
and
privilege
review
tools
as
part
of
the
standard
package
levels
the
playing
field.
It
also
makes
for
better
results
when
both
sides
have
access
to
the
same
tools.

Phil
Saunders,
the
Relativity
CEO,
put
it
this
way:
“We
believe
generative
AI
is
the
undeniable
future
of
review,
and
we’re
making
it
easy
for
all
RelativityOne
customers
to
experience
the
platform.”

In
some
respects,
the
decision
reflects
the
culture
of
the
company
and
in
particular
the
philosophy
of
Saunders
who
has
been
in
that
position
for
almost
three
years.
Unlike
many
of
those
in
C-suites
of
legal
tech
companies,
Saunders
is
refreshingly
honest.
He’s
self-deprecating.
He’s
humble
but
confident.
He’s
the
kind
of
CEO
who
goes
to
the
somewhat
drab
hotel
gym
to
work
out
with
everyone
else
instead
of
being
chauffeured
to
someplace
fancy
with
his
entourage.
You
know
the
kind
of
guy
you
want
to
have
a
beer
with?
That’s
Saunders.

Some
Honesty
For
a
Change

Consistent
with
his
style
and
philosophy,
Saunders
made
a
number
of
revealing
and
candid
comments
in
the
Keynote
and
afterwards
in
a
press
conference.

For
example,
one
of
the
tools
announced
recently
by
Relativity
is

aiR
Strategy,
which
helps
users
create
case
strategies.
When
asked
why
that
tool
was
also
not
being
bundled
in
the
standard
package,
his
response
was
interesting:
frankly,
he
admitted
that
the
product
is
not
quite
ready
yet.
It’s
not
a
“real-time,
best-in-class”
offering.
Interesting
and
honest:
bundling
aiR
Strategy
will
apparently
be
discussed
only
when
the
product
is
ready.

When
asked
about
future
mergers
and
acquisitions,
Saunders
also
answered
honestly
that
the
company
had
not
been
good
at
integrating
acquired
companies
in
the
past.
He
also
noted
that
a
lack
of
a
culture
fit
just
fuels
disruption.
So,
says
Saunders,
Relativity
just
hasn’t
been
ready
for
more
acquisitions.

Saunders
also
raised
the
question
of
the
importance
of
(or
perhaps
lack
of
importance)
of
focusing
too
much
on
revenue:
“just
because
something
builds
revenue
doesn’t
mean
it’s
going
to
serve
the
customers
well…
we
have
to
get
over
the
reality
that
revenue
is
like
heroin,
it’s
addictive.”

Saunders
also
addressed
the
relationship
of
Relativity
with
its
partners.
He
firmly
planted
a
flag:
Relativity
partners
can’t
take
a
Relativity
product
and
mark
it
up.
“It’s
not
serving
the
end
customer
by
marking
up
a
platform
5X
to
maintain
the
margins
they
once
had
in
the
human
review
business
and
then
doing
a
bunch
of
consulting
services
and
charging
$800
an
hour.”
 

Relationships
with
partners
can
often
be
touchy:
it’s
like
the
relationship
between
franchisors
and
franchisees
that
I’m
familiar
with
from
practicing
law.
They
need
each
other
but
if
the
franchisor
doesn’t
make
sure
the
franchisee
offers
the
products
fairly
and
honestly,
everyone
gets
hurt.
It’s
the
same
here,
so
it’s
good
to
see
Saunders
make
Relativity’s
stance
clear.

Saunders
was
also
asked
if
the
recently
announced
Relativity

Rel
Labs
program,
an
investment
program
that
would
support
legal
tech
startups,
 might
partner
with
or
invest
in
some
socially
oriented
AI
tools.
Another
honest
answer:
“that’s
a
really
good
question,
we
haven’t
thought
of
it.”

As
Saunders
put
it,
“if
we
don’t
know
something,
we
own
it.”

Company
Culture

Concluding
the
press
conference,
Saunders
summed
up
in
a
few
words
what
he
thinks
the
culture
of
Relativity
is
or
should
be.
First,
it
approaches
things
with
“radical
candor”
where
ideas
and
for
that
matter,
failures,
are
discussed
openly
and
robustly.
It
strives
to
be
“humble
but
hungry.”
 

Platitudes?
Maybe.
But
if
bundling
key
tools
without
charging
extra
for
them
is
any
indication,
this
culture
may
be
real.

Plus,
by
the
way,
says
Saunders,
radical
candor
lets
him
swear
a
lot.

Why
This
Approach
Works

I
don’t
work
for
Relativity.
I’m
not
there
day
to
day.
I
don’t
use
their
products.
But
in
an
era
when
many
tech
vendors
overpromise
underperforming
products
or
announce
products
that
will
be
offered
later,
offer
enhancements
that
don’t
do
much
new,
or
offer
products
as
add-ons
to
their
central
core
products,
Saunders’s
honesty
and
transparency
is
refreshing.

As
with
most
customer
relationships,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it
needs
to
be
about
trust.
Honesty
and
transparency
generate
trust.
Doing
the
right
thing
like
including
key
programs
in
the
standard
platform
says
a
lot.
Particularly
in
a
business
where
relationships
between
legal
service
providers
and
their
clients
hinge
almost
entirely
on
trust.

If
only
other
vendors
followed
suit,
they
might
be
become
trusted
allies
instead
of
just
vendors.

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

Many
lawyers
have
a
lone
wolf
approach
to
their
cases.
Even
when
they
lead
a
team,
they
often
make
decisions
with
little
to
no
input
from
the
team.
Senior
lawyers
typically
view
their
role
as
defining
and
determining
the
case
strategy,
leaving
the
rest
of
the
team
to
implement
their
plan
and
ideas.
They’re
the
ones
defining
a
win
and
concocting
the
roadmap
to
achieve
it.
The
rest
of
the
team
takes
that
blueprint
and
constructs
the
case.
This
process
is
the
default
of
many
hierarchical
firms
–
senior
partners
create
the
plan,
junior
partners
manage
the
plan,
associates
and
paralegals
implement
the
plan.
It
often
works,
and
the
desired
outcomes
are
generally
achieved.
 I
would
suggest,
however,
that
a
better
approach
exists,
which
yields
better
outcomes.

This
top-to-bottom
approach,
almost
a
military
perspective,
where
generals
decide
on
the
war
plans
and
foot
soldiers
take
the
hill,
has
the
potential
for
poor
results
when
those
at
the
top
create
a
flawed
strategy,
resulting
in
the
execution
of
a
flawed
approach
that
produces
poor
results.

There
is
value
in
having
the
entire
team
contribute
input,
ideas,
creativity,
and
imagination
to
a
plan
before
finalizing
and
implementing
it.
This
strikes
me
as
a
truism. 
Yet,
why
don’t
more
lawyers
take
this
approach?
The
obstacles
are
myriad.

For
those
of
us
who
bill
by
the
hour,
some
clients
are
hesitant
to
pay
for
brainstorming
sessions.
You’ve
been
doing
this
for
X
years
–
why
is
collaboration
needed?
Don’t
you
already
know
how
to
handle
this
case?
Clients
have
historically
viewed
team
sessions
as
billing
blackholes,
fueling
senior
partners
to
create
a
plan
themselves
and
have
their
teams
implement
it,
with
little
to
no
input
from
them.
It
looks
cleaner
and
creates
fewer
line
items
on
the
firm
invoice.

Some
senior
partners,
due
to
tradition,
customs,
or
their
egos,
prefer
this
top-down
approach. 
They
can
define
a
case,
set
it
in
motion,
and
proceed
to
the
following
case.
They
say
jump,
and
the
troops
ask
how
high.
It’s
hard
to
change
how
things
have
always
been
done.

Some
junior
partners
and
associates
may
be
hesitant
to
be
seen
as
contrarian
or
argumentative,
and
therefore
feel
uncomfortable
voicing
their
views
and
opinions,
especially
if
they
contradict
the
senior
partner’s
plan
of
attack.
Better
to
stay
quiet
and
implement
a
flawed
plan
than
risk
a
poor
performance
review
for
being
perceived
as
not
getting
along
with
others.

And
collaboration
needs
to
be
intentional
and
well-directed. 
Experienced
lawyers
may
not
possess
the
necessary
skill
set
or
emotional
intelligence
to
encourage
the
team
to
freely
and
openly
participate
and
share
their
views
and
experiences.

All
of
these
inhibit
team
brainstorming
sessions.
Intentionality
is
key
to
overcoming
these
obstacles
and
breaking
down
these
barriers
to
facilitate
more
group
discussions
and
thoughtful
dialogue.

For
group
brainstorming
to
work,
the
firm
must
appreciate
its
importance
and
significance,
and
take
steps
to
implement
it
firm-wide,
including
addressing
billing
issues
with
clients,
creating
safe
spaces
where
the
team
can
speak
freely
(so
long
as
they
do
so
professionally
and
politely),
and
training
everyone
on
how
to
lead
and
participate
in
these
sessions.
Simply
encouraging
your
team
to
think
collectively
is
insufficient. 
You
must
empower
them
to
do
so
and
teach
them
the
necessary
skills.

When
a
case
first
comes
in
and
a
team
is
assembled
to
handle
it,
an
in-person
or
virtual
meeting
should
be
held
to
set
the
stage
for
the
case
and
discuss:
(1)
how
to
define
a
win;
(2)
how
to
achieve
that
win;
(3)
a
plan
with
action
steps
to
achieve
that
win.
Everyone
should
be
encouraged
to
participate,
share
their
thoughts,
and
discuss
the
subject.
About
once
a
month
(sometimes
less,
sometimes
more,
depending
on
the
case’s
complexity,
activity
level,
and
stakes
involved),
the
group
should
schedule
another
meeting
to
discuss
the
case’s
status
and
identify
any
necessary
adjustments
or
changes
to
the
plan
to
achieve
the
desired
outcomes. 
This
ensures
that
the
plan
is
modified
as
needed
and
also
serves
as
a
check-in
for
everyone
to
report
on
their
progress
and
any
roadblocks
or
issues
they
encounter.

In-house
legal
departments
are
generally
much
better
at
this
approach
than
law
firms
(possibly
because
they
don’t
encounter
billable
hour
issues
and
view
their
work
as
inherently
more
collaborative).
Taking
their
lead,
trying
this
approach
should
yield
more
effective
strategies
with
better
results.

Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.

Most
in-house
legal
teams
know
the
feeling:
inboxes
overflowing
with
attachments,
redlines
lost
in
endless
email
chains,
and
that
nagging
worry
that
something
important
slipped
through
the
cracks. 

To
prevent
costly
mistakes
that
can
arise
from
such
disorganization,
company
legal
teams
are
increasingly
turning
to
management
software
like
Filevine.
Although
Filevine
may
be
best
known
as
a
litigation
tool
to
help
law
firms
prepare
for
trial,
its
AI-enhanced
document
management
and
contract
review
tools
can
save
time
and
money
across
various
industries.

In
a
recent
product
demo,
Madison
Doyle,
manager
of
sales
engineering
at
Filevine,
offered
a
real-life
scenario
that
the
software
can
prevent.
Before
a
real-estate
company
started
using
Filevine,
its
general
counsel
missed
a
lease
renewal
notice
buried
in
email.
The
60-day
deadline
came
and
went,
leaving
the
company
scrambling
to
argue
its
way
out
of
an
expensive
move. 

That
case
turned
out
fine,
but
the
lesson
was
obvious—running
legal
operations
from
Outlook
email
chains
is
asking
for
trouble.

“It’s
more
than
just
a
litigation
tool,”
Doyle
said.
“These
same
AI
tools
can
be
applied
to
so
many
other
applications.”

Getting
Started

Under
the
Project
Hub,
the
user
sees
a
repository
of
all
the
open
projects
they’re
working
on
as
well
as
their
status.
Click
on
the
project
name
and
a
window
opens
to
the
right
with
vital
information
such
as
the
contract
expiration
date
and
its
latest
activity.

Users
also
can
apply
several
filters
to
narrow
down
their
search,
such
as
by
project
type
if
they’re
looking
for
an
employment
matter
or
by
clicking
a
tag,
which
could
be
a
signal
from
a
higher-up
to
address
something
“#critical.”

In
each
project,
they
can
see
not
only
the
negotiation
history,
but
also
categories
of
activity
and
the
documents
that
have
been
appended
to
it—email
history,
redlined
versions,
internal
notes,
and
more,
all
in
one
space.

How
It
Helps
With
Data
Intake

For
most
lawyers,
the
day
starts
in
Outlook.
That’s
why
Filevine
built
its
most
popular
intake
feature
as
an
email
plugin.
It
scans
an
incoming
attachment,
captures
all
its
details
and
automatically
populates
the
data
into
the
correct
field. 

When
the
attachment
is
added
to
a
project,
the
user
can
tag
who
needs
to
act
on
it
to
create
a
task
in
their
workflow.
The
new
attachment,
the
email
and
the
task
are
all
added
to
the
project’s
activity
history
in
the
Project
Hub.

“I’m
not
trying
to
work
in
a
silo,”
Doyle
said.
“I
want
to
make
it
so
everyone
on
the
team
can
help
out.”

Legal
teams
that
rely
on
Slack
or
Teams
also
can
format
Filevine
to
integrate
their
existing
workflow
into
the
system.
So
wherever
the
request
originates,
it
flows
into
a
structured
central
place.

Once
a
document
is
uploaded,
an
AI
tool
automatically
summarizes
its
attributes
for
a
quick
glance
that
can
get
a
new
associate
up
to
speed.
For
an
updated
contract,
for
instance,
it
offers
a
sentence
or
two
each
about
payment
terms,
insurance
requirements,
and
indemnification,
among
others.
Another
panel
highlights
clauses
with
potential
disputes,
giving
lawyers
a
head
start
in
their
document
analysis.

Different
versions
of
documents
can
also
be
easily
compared
side
by
side
to
see
the
latest
changes. 

“This
is
way
better
than
how
most
groups
do
it,
which
really
is,
I
create
a
Word
document,
I
edit
it,
I
send
it
to
you
in
email,”
Doyle
said.
“You
open
it
up,
you
make
a
change,
you
send
it
back
to
me,
and
we
keep
doing
that
until
we’re
satisfied.
That
takes
much
longer.”

Besides
taking
much
less
time,
Filevine’s
system
makes
it
easier
to
produce
reports.

Boosting
Your
Document
Management

The
way
documents
have
been
traditionally
managed
in
legal
departments
often
meant
endless
hunting
through
folders
for
scattered
versions
saved
on
individuals’
hard
drives.
Filevine
replaces
all
that
with
a
searchable,
collaborative
repository.

Every
draft,
redline,
and
related
email
lives
in
a
single
transaction
space.
They
can
be
edited
in
the
system
or
even
in
Word,
and
notes
can
be
added
to
each
revision 
(“sent
to
counterparty,”
for
example).
Saving
it
automatically
creates
a
new
version
in
the
system
that
updates
for
everyone,
including
the
version
history
and
track
changes
to
ensure
no
one
loses
track
of
what
was
changed.

Because
every
document
is
indexed
on
upload,
search
works
at
the
content
level—not
just
file
names.
Need
to
find
every
contract
with
a
non-standard
indemnification
clause?
It’s
a
few
clicks
away. 

For
bigger
matters,
Filevine
doubles
as
a
secure
data
room.
External
parties
can
upload
documents
via
password-protected
links,
without
creating
accounts
or
passing
endless
emails
back
and
forth.
With
file
limits
as
high
as
50GB,
storage
is
more
than
sufficient.

“When
groups
do
this
outside
of
Filevine,
it’s
very
easy
to
lose
track
of
which
version
you
actually
sent,”
Doyle
said.
“Inside
Filevine,
I
can
always
understand
how
a
document
came
in,
where
it’s
saved,
and
what
the
version
history
is.”

Draft
Documents
Faster
with
Customized
Templates

On
the
drafting
side,
Filevine
Document
Assembly
stands
out.
Legal
teams
can
generate
NDAs,
MSAs
or
amendments
from
structured
templates,
with
data
fields
flowing
directly
into
the
right
spots.
What
makes
FVDA
different
is
its
bi-directional
sync.
Change
a
variable—like
an
effective
date—in
one
place,
and
it
updates
across
the
entire
document
and
underlying
database.

That
ensures
reports
always
match
the
right
information.

Lawyers
can
generate
boilerplate
or
tailored
language
with
a
click,
then
pull
from
a
clause
library
of
the
team’s
best
past
writing.
If
a
user
needs
to
adapt
indemnification
for
a
special
client,
for
example,
they
can
search
the
library
to
drop
in
the
right
version.

“All
of
that
exists,
but
it
can
be
enhanced
by
the
AI
to
help
perform
at
a
higher
level,
and
be
more
diligent
in
your
work,”
Doyle
said.

Enhancing
It
All
with
AI

All
of
these
features—intake,
document
management,
and
contract
drafting—are
valuable
on
their
own.
But
they
become
even
more
powerful
when
layered
with
Filevine’s
AI
capabilities.

In
one
scenario,
Doyle
uploaded
a
supplier
agreement
and
highlighted
purple
stars
that
mark
where
AI
is
active.
Immediately,
the
system
generated
a
summary
of
the
contract
and
flagged
potentially
problematic
terms—imbalances
between
parties,
undefined
provisions,
clauses
that
fell
outside
the
norm.

Cross-referencing
is
built
in.
Click
a
flagged
issue
in
the
AI
report,
and
it
jumps
straight
to
the
clause
in
the
contract. 

All
the
commands
are
managed
from
a
chat
window
on
the
right
that
can
answer
questions
and
take
commands
in
natural
language.
The
history
of
all
the
requests
is
preserved
so
everyone
on
the
team
can
see
who
did
what.

“It’s
a
nice
way
to
just
know
what’s
in
that
repository
that
might
sneak
up
on
you,”
Doyle
noted,
especially
in
contexts
like
M&A
where
dozens
or
hundreds
of
agreements
come
under
review.

At
modern
in-house
legal
teams,
people
are
under
more
pressure
than
ever
to
deliver
more
value
with
fewer
people
resources—and
no
tolerance
for
avoidable
mistakes.
Filevine
enables
the
team
to
work
together
to
streamline
intake,
organize
documents,
and
free
up
time
with
AI-powered
tools.

“We
think
this
is
more
of
the
way
of
the
future,
instead
of
just
passing
the
same
Word
document
back
and
forth
and
letting
chaos
develop
in
your
inbox,”
Doyle
said.

Another
week,
another
law
firm
merger.
Because
apparently
no
one
in
Biglaw
wants
to
stay
regional
anymore,
in
yet
another
sign
of
growing
consolidation
in
industry,
Frost
Brown
Todd
and
Gibbons
are
joining
forces
to
create
a
new
national
firm
called
FBT
Gibbons.

The
combination,
set
to
go
live
on
January
1,
2026,
will
bring
together
about
800
attorneys
across
25
offices
from
coast
to
coast.
The
new
firm
will
have
a
reach
that
stretches
from
New
York
to
California,
giving
both
firms
a
much
broader
platform
—
and
a
lot
more
lawyers
to
wrangle.

Frost
Brown
Todd,
based
in
Cincinnati,
is
known
for
its
corporate
and
transactional
work,
while
Newark-based
Gibbons
—
a
firm
that’s
nearly
a
century
old
—
has
long
been
a
litigation
heavyweight
in
the
Northeast.
Together,
they’re
hoping
to
carve
out
a
bigger
slice
of
the
middle-market
pie,
the
increasingly
competitive
space
between
the
global
Biglaw
giants
and
the
smaller
boutiques.

Financially
speaking,
they’re
off
to
a
solid
start.
Combined,
the
two
firms
bring
in
north
of
$450
million
in
revenue
—
enough
to
land
FBT
Gibbons
comfortably
within
the
Am
Law
100
when
the
next
set
of
rankings
come
out.
As
noted
by
the

American
Lawyer,
leadership
for
the
new
firm
is
already
set:

“We
are
very
excited
about
this
as
leaders
of
our
respective
firms
and
the
leaders
of
the
combined
firm
to
be,”
said
FBT
chairman
Robert
Sartin
in
an
interview.
“Our
partners
are
very
much
behind
this
and
excited
about
it.”

Sartin
will
serve
as
chair
of
the
combined
firm,
with
Gibbons
managing
director
Peter
Torcicollo
and
FBT’s
CEO
Adam
Hall
serving
as
co-managing
partners.
FBT
held
its
partnership
vote
on
the
combination
Monday,
with
more
than
90%
of
the
firm’s
partnership
greenlighting
the
merger,
and
Gibbons’
partnership
unanimously
confirmed
the
merger
Tuesday.

When
the
dust
settles,
FBT
Gibbons
will
be
one
of
the
largest
mid-market
firms
in
the
country,
with
the
resources
to
take
on
national
matters
while
keeping
that
“client-first”
vibe
both
firms
swear
by.
Whether
that
balance
holds
up
after
the
honeymoon
phase
remains
to
be
seen,
but
for
now,
Frost
Brown
Todd
and
Gibbons
are
the
latest
to
say
“I
do”
in
Biglaw’s
ongoing
merger
season.

Frost
Brown
Todd
to
Merge
With
NJ
Mainstay
Gibbons,
Bolstering
Northeast
Footprint
[American
Lawyer]

Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Most
lawyers
have
fretted
from
time
to
time
about
the
encroachment
of
artificial
intelligence
on
the
work
that
they
do.
Although
it
is
a
relief
not
to
have
to
do
document
review
until
your
eyes
are
bleary,
and
it
is
also
a
relief
not
to
have
to
draft
basic
discovery
documents
(those
pesky
interrogatories,
requests
for
admission,
and
document
requests)
or
respond
to
them
with
objections
and
redactions
galore,
up
to
now,
there
has
been
some
comfort
in
thinking
that
certain
duties,
responsibilities,
and
obligations
that
lawyers
have
cannot
be
replicated
by
AI.
Is
that
still
the
case?

How
many
people
have
read
the
recent
stories
about
the
creation
of
an
AI
actress?
This development
has
the
entertainment
world
in
a
tizzy
and
rightfully
so.
Her
name
is

Tilly
Norwood
(a
nice
name
for
an
actress),
but
Tilly
is
not
a
real
person.
She
is
an
AI
creation.
I
am
not
making
this
up.

Just
Google
Tilly’s
name
to
read
stories
about
her
and
what
her
potential
is
to
affect
the
entertainment
industry
and

not
in
good
ways.
She
doesn’t
have
to
belong
to
a
union
to
get
work,
she
doesn’t
have
a
limit
on
her
working
hours,
and
she
probably
won’t
need
publicists,
agents,
and
others
in
the
entourage
that
have
been
hallmarks
of
the
talent
industry.

I
started
thinking
(always
perilous
for
me)
about
what
would
happen
if
AI
started
to
create
lawyers?
Would
there
be
any
restrictions
on
the
kind
of
work
that
they
could
do?
Let’s
name
one
lawyer:
Arthur
Indolent
(aka
AI
for
short).
What
would
AI
be
allowed
to
do?
Would
AI
be
able
to
take
or
defend
depositions?
Would
AI
be
able
to
meet
with
clients
(most
likely
over
Zoom)
and
provide
legal
advice?
What
would
that
do
to
the
requirement
that
attorneys
be
admitted
to
a
bar?
Would
AI
create
his
own
bar
license?
Would
AI
even
need
to
pass
a
bar
exam
to
practice,
let
alone
go
to
law
school?
(Note
that
Utah
has
announced
an

alternative
path
to
licensing.)

What
about
the
ethical
responsibilities
and
duties
of
real
life
lawyers?
Would
they
apply
to
AI
and
its
cohort?
If
not,
would
there
be
any
guardrails
to
prevent
horror
stories
like
Tom
Girardi
and
others?
Would
AI
have
to
maintain
a
trust
account?
And
would
there
be
any
reason
for
AI
to
fulfill
CLE
requirements?
My
mind
explodes
with
all
the
possibilities
of
AI
as
lawyers.
How
do
we
compete?

But
I
am
not
done
yet.
How
would
AI
act
in
the
courtroom?
Would
an
artificial
intelligence
lawyer
be
able
to
represent
clients
in
court?
If
so,
how?
And
if
not,
why
not?
We
are
already
seeing
the
use
of
AI
in
mediation.
Not
being
bashful
about
using
AI
to
prove
my
point,
here
is
part
of
what
AI
(not
Arthur,
but
artificial
intelligence
per
Google)
reports: “AAA
[American
Arbitration
Association]
is
leveraging
AI
to
improve
the
efficiency
and
accessibility
of
mediation
services,
not
to
replace
human
mediators
entirely.“
Read
that
again.
“Not
to
replace
human
mediators
entirely.”
What
does
“not
replace
entirely”
mean?
What
does
that
mean
for
lawyers
who
mediate
and
those

full-time
mediators?
Should
we
start
looking
for
side
gigs?
What
will
be
their
futures?
What
will
be
ours?

How
will
a
court
discipline
AI
that
hallucinates?
Will
there
be
any
remedy?
Sanctions
may
well
be
laughable.
Collectible?
Please.
And
what
if
as
it
probably
will,
AI
wants
to
become
a
judge
someday?
Is
that
a
possibility?
What
about
jury
panels?
Will
they
be
composed
of
AIs
as
well?  

And
I
won’t
even
get
started
on
judicial
AI
FUBARS.
Those
deserve

their
own
column.

We
can’t
say
that
Tilly
Norwood
and
her
cohorts
will
leave
us
alone.
Junior
Tilly
Norwoods
are
already
present
at
the
basic
levels
of
lawyering.
Unfortunately,
I
am
not
hallucinating
about
all
this,
although
perhaps
some
of
you
will
think
so.
AI
and
its
cohorts
are
coming
for
us,
in
ways
big
and
small.
What
use
will
a
bar
exam
be
if
AI
doesn’t
need
one
to
take
one?
What
will
differentiate
us
from
them?
I
know,
many
of
you
are
chortling
now,
but
remember
HAL
from
“2001:
A
Space
Odyssey.”
Who
had
the
last
chortle
there? 

And
for
those
Biglaw
firms
that
populate
ATL’s
Spine
Index,
using
AI
“persons”
might
be
a
way
to
staff
up,
replacing
lawyers
who
have
left.
The
good
news
for
those
firms
is
that

an
AI
replacement
lawyer
need
not
have
a
spine.

Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at




[email protected].

WASHINGTON
— While
all
eyes
were
on
the
efforts
to
avert
a
government
shutdown
at
the
end
of
September,
a
lesser
known
tool
used
by
the
Pentagon
to
support
small
companies
was
left
fighting
for
its
own
life:
the
Small
Business
Innovation
Research
program.

As
of
eight
days
ago,
funding
for

SBIR
lapsed,
and
while
it
could
be
restored,
lawmakers
are
at
a
hard
impasse
about
whether
it
should
be
— at
least
in
its
current
form.

The
program,
launched
in
1982
and
administered
by
the
Small
Business
Administration,
provides
seed
funding
to
small
businesses
for
technology
development,
with
the
Defense
Department
as
the
largest
participant
of
the
program. 

Proponents
say
it’s
an
initiative
with
a
proven
track
record
of
success,
and
that
allowing
funding
to
lapse
permanently
or
enact
reforms
too
aggressively
will
do
irreparable
damage
to
the
small
defense
business
ecosystem.
But
critics
say
it
is
not
fulfilling
its
mandate,
and
that
changes
are
needed
to
bring
in
new
entrants
and
ensure
repeat
awardees
eventually
“graduate”
from
the
program. 

“You
look
at
the
DoD
in
particular
…
25
companies
sucked
up
18
percent
of
the
[SBIR]
funding
at
DoD
and
are
not
really
producing,”
Sen.
Joni
Ernst,
chairwoman
of
the
Senate
Small
Business
and
Entrepreneurship
Committee,
said
in
September
at
the
Center
for
Strategic
and
International
Studies.
“It’s
really
like
a
negative
investment
strategy,
because
we’re
pumping
the
money
in
but
not
getting
anything
back
out.”

For
now,
the
Pentagon
has
given
guidance
to
companies
stating
that
while
current
contracts
“remain
valid
unless
otherwise
directed,”
new
solicitations
are
paused
and
pending
awards
will
only
proceed
if
fiscal
2025
funding
is
available,
a
department
official
told
Breaking
Defense
in
a
statement.

“While
the
War
Department’s
Small
Business
Innovation
Research
(SBIR)
and
Small
Business
Technology
Transfer
(STTR)
programs’
authorization
lapsed,
that
does
not
mean
ongoing
work
has
been
terminated,”
the
official
said,
using
a
secondary
name
for
the
Defense
Department.
“Until
reauthorized,
we
encourage
our
small
business
partners
to
use
this
pause
to
assess
how
their
capabilities
align
with
Department
needs.
Once
restored,
the
program
and
its
functions
will
swiftly
resume.”

It’s
the
longer
term
future
of
the
program
that
appears
most
murky,
in
part
because
of
a
split
in
industry
and
its
congressional
supporters
about
how
SBIR
has,
or
has
not,
been
exploited
by
some
firms. 

At
the
center
of
the
debate
is
the
Investing
in
National
Next-Generation
Opportunities
for
Venture
Acceleration
and
Technological
Excellence
(INNOVATE)
Act
proposed
by
Ernst,
R-Iowa.
The
INNOVATE
Act
imposes
new
rules
meant
to
root
out
the
risks
of
foreign
nations
like
China
gaining
control
of
US
technology,
and
shifts
some
money
from
the
Small
Business
Technology
Transfer
(SBTT)
program
to
a
new
“Strategic
Breakthrough”
initiative
aimed
at
helping
companies
bridge
the
timeline
between
developing
a
new
technology
and
producing
it.

However,
the
bill’s
most
controversial
provision
would
create
a
$75
million
cap
on
SBIR
funds
a
company
could
win
throughout
its
lifetime
—
a
measure
meant
to
force
companies
to
move
on
from
the
program
and
find
a
wider
market
for
their
products
in
the
commercial
sector. 

Ernst
and
the
venture-backed
startup
community
contend
that
there
are
so-called
“SBIR
mills”—
research
and
development
firms
that
have
historically
specialized
in
winning
SBIR
contracts
but
do
not
typically
compete
for
larger
defense
programs.
Those
firms,
the
critics
say,
soak
up
most
of
the
funding
made
available,
at
the
expense
of
new
entrants
who
could
use
that
money
to
scale
technologies
for
mass
production.

But
defenders
of
the
program
state
that
eliminating
longstanding
SBIR
winners
would
punish
companies
who
have
a
track
record
of
successfully
developing
and
producing
technology
for
the
Defense
Department.

“All
that
we’re
saying
is
that,
why
can’t
everybody
compete?”
said
Jay
Rozzi,
vice
president
and
principal
engineer
for
Creare,
a
research
and
development
company
that
could
be
forced
out
of
the
SBIR
program
under
an
award
cap.
“Why
can’t
the
market
be
open
for
everyone?”

A
Political
Stalemate

The
House
passed
a
clean,
one-year
extension
for
the
SBIR/STTR
programs
in
mid-September.
But
although
that
bill
was
backed
on
a
bipartisan
basis
by
members
of
the
House
Small
Business
Committee,
the
Senate
has
yet
to
vote
on
the
measure.

On
Sept.
30,
with
just
hours
counting
down
before
the
program
lapsed,
Massachusetts
Sen.
Ed
Markey,
the
top
Democrat
on
the
Senate
Small
Business
Committee,
took
to
the
Senate
floor
to
seek
agreement
to
bring
the
House
bill
up
for
a
vote,
defending
the
ability
for
companies
to
win
multiple
SBIR
awards.

“These
programs
work
because
of
their
merit-based
competition
nature.
Darwinian,
paranoia-inducing
competition,”
he
said.
“Kicking
successful
companies
out
of
these
programs
would
be
like
cutting
your
highest
scorers
after
winning
the
NBA
title.”

However,
Ernst
made
clear
she
would
oppose
any
effort
to
pass
a
clean
extension
of
the
program
and
offered
her
own
substitute
proposal:
A
30-day
extension,
during
which
the
$75
million
lifetime
cap
on
awards
would
be
in
effect.

“If
my
colleagues
truly
oppose
even
basic
safeguards,
then
this
SBIR
set-aside
charade
should
end,
and
taxpayer
dollars
should
be
restored
to
the
agency’s
R&D
budgets
where
they
will
better
serve
our
warfighters
and
strengthen
our
nation’s
competitiveness,”
she
said
in
a
speech
on
the
floor.
“Instead
of
recklessly
extending
the
status
quo
for
another
year,
these
set
aside
dollars
would
simply
be
returned
to
each
agency.
And
small
businesses
can
continue
to
compete
for
those
awards.”