It
is
alleged
that
a
soldier
was
stabbed
and
needed
urgent
medical
care
after
some
of
the
illegal
immigrants
became
aggressive
when
intercepted.
One
video
shows
a
large
group,
including
women
carrying
babies
on
their
backs,
being
stopped
as
they
attempted
to
cross.
The
footage
captures
the
group
being
instructed
to
walk
in
single
file
across
land
partly
covered
in
muddy
water.
The
arrests
were
carried
out
over
the
past
week
as
part
of
ongoing
border
security
operations
during
the
festive
season.
The
SANDF
said:
“This
marks
the
first
time
our
members
have
had
to
manage
such
a
massive
influx
during
this
period
of
the
festive
season.”
Officials
said
the
group
was
trying
to
enter
South
Africa
through
illegal
border
points.
The
border
jumpers
were
processed
according
to
immigration
laws
and
handed
over
to
the
relevant
authorities.
The
SANDF
warned
that
border
security
operations
will
continue
and
that
illegal
crossings
will
not
be
tolerated.
Bulawayo
Provincial
police
spokesperson,
Inspector
Nomalanga
Msebele,
said
the
incident
followed
an
interaction
on
a
WhatsApp
group
called Idale
labomama,
which
the
26-year-old
mother
had
joined
about
four
months
earlier.
The
group
advertised
that
mothers
in
need
of
children’s
clothing
could
contact
a
supplied
number
for
assistance.
“The
complainant
contacted
the
number
via
WhatsApp
and
communicated
with
an
unknown
suspect
who
identified
herself
only
as
MaNdlovu
of
Cowdray
Park.
The
suspect
offered
to
deliver
the
clothes
to
the
complainant’s
residence,
and
directions
were
provided,”
said
Inspector
Msebele.
On
December
29,
at
around
6am,
the
suspect
informed
the
mother
that
she
would
deliver
the
clothes
later
that
day.
At
about
1pm,
the
suspect
instructed
the
mother
to
wait
at
the
corner
of
Harare
Road
and
Cecil
Avenue
in
Parklands
to
collect
the
items.
Inspector
Msebele
said
the
mother
left
home
with
one
of
her
four-month-old
twins
and
went
to
the
meeting
point,
leaving
the
other
twin
asleep
in
the
bedroom
and
her
four-year-old
daughter
playing
outside.
The
mother
waited
for
about
15
minutes
before
receiving
a
message
from
the
suspect
saying
she
had
sent
someone
known
only
as
‘Lo’
who
did
not
arrive,
prompting
the
complainant
to
return
home.
“Upon
arrival,
she
discovered
that
her
four-month-old
baby
girl
was
missing,”
Inspector
Msebele
added,
noting
that
the
matter
was
immediately
reported
to
the
police.
Police
have
appealed
to
members
of
the
public
with
information
that
may
lead
to
the
arrest
of
the
suspect
or
the
recovery
of
the
baby
to
report
at
the
nearest
police
station.
“We
also
urge
mothers
and
caregivers
to
exercise
extreme
caution
when
dealing
with
strangers
on
social
media
and
to
avoid
oversharing
personal
or
sensitive
information,
as
this
exposes
them
and
their
children
to
serious
risk,”
said
Inspector
Msebele.
Touchy
With
The
Teeth:
Sidley
associate
fired
after
(politely)
gnawing
on
her
co-workers.
Keep
The
Congratulations
On
The
Hush
Hush:
Kirkland
opts
out
of
advertising
their
newest
partners.
Prof.
Files
Fed
Suit
After
Kirk
Related
Censorship:
Bold
move,
University
of
Tennessee.
Amy
Coney
Barrett
Outlines
The
King
Decision:
Excuse
me,
President
for
life*.
The
district
court
wrote
careful
opinions
which
were
relatively
consistent.
An
ordinary
litigant
might
have
said
it’s
not
worth
it.
But
the
desire
to
win
on
appeal
is
not
the
only
reason
to
pursue
these
appeals.
The
appeals
force
the
targeted
firms
to
incur
significant
legal
fees
and
live
with
some
measure
of
uncertainty.
The
fact
that
the
cases
have
not
been
finally
resolved
may
have
some
in
terrorem
effects
on
other
firms
that
are
observing
what
is
happening.
—
Leslie
Levin,
a
legal
ethics
professor
at
the
University
of
Connecticut
Law
School,
in
comments
given
to
Law.com,
concerning
the
Trump
administration’s
retaliatory
law
firm
executive
orders.
Each
firm
that
challenged
in
court
successfully
attained
injunctions,
with
the
orders
found
unconstitutional.
Scott
Cummings,
a
legal
ethics
professor
at
UCLA
School
of
Law,
echoed
Levin’s
thoughts,
telling
Law.com,
“I
think
it’s
inevitable
that
they
headed
this
direction,
[for
the
government
to]
move
these
things
as
far
as
it
possibly
can
move
them,
even
just
to
impose
additional
kind
of
pressure
and
expense
on
the
law
firms.”
Cummings
went
on
to
assess
Trump’s
chances
on
appeal,
saying,
“I
think
the
outcomes
will
be
inevitable
against
the
government.
I
think
all
four
injunction
orders
are
very
strong.”
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.
Vampire
or
Biglaw
summer
associate?
You
be
the
judge.
This
is
a
story
you’re
really
going
to
chew
on
for
a
while.
A
Sidley
summer
associate
in
the
New
York
office
who
we’ll
refer
to
as
Biglaw
Biter
(for
reasons
that
will
soon
be
apparent)
was
let
go
after
a
series
of
incidents
with
other
employees.
What
happened
you
ask?
She
bit
other
people
at
work.
You
are
not
reading
this
incorrectly:
a
Biglaw
summer
associate
bit
people
at
the
firm
—
with
her
teeth.
(For
the
record,
before
settling
on
the
alliterative
Biglaw
Biter
as
the
summer’s
code
name,
we
did
consider
Sidley
Masticator,
Scrumptious
Summer,
Champion
Chomper,
Mike
Tyson
of
Biglaw,
and
the
close
runner-up,
Associate
Lecter.)
According
to
insiders
at
the
firm,
pretty
much
from
the
start
of
the
summer,
the
Biglaw
Biter
started
chomping
away
at
other
employees
at
Sidley
Gnaw-stin
—
not
in
an
aggressive,
“we’re
beefing”
way,
but
more
of
a
faux-quirky
manic
pixie
dream
girl
crossed
with
the
Donner
party
vibe.
But
like,
you’re
in
NYC
for
the
summer
—
if
you
want
to
get
your
kicks
by
biting
people,
there
are
more
consensual
ways
to
do
it.
The
final
chomp-count
is
thought
to
be
in
the
double
digits
(UPDATE:
insiders
now
confirm
there
were
5
people
chewed
on
at
Sidley
this
summer)
—
which
is
an
awfully
long
time
for
the
nibbling
to
continue.
(Though
I’ve
seen
pics
of
the
results
post-Biglaw
Biter,
and
“nibble”
is
probably
too
tame
a
word.
No
one
should
have
marks
on
their
person
after
an
interaction
with
a
co-worker
in
Biglaw
—
emotional
and
psychological
scars
only!)
It’s
unclear
why
this
went
on
so
long
before
reporting
the
Biglaw
Biter,
but
the
rumor
is
she’s
otherwise
personable
and
there
was
some
reluctance
to
elevate
the
matter.
It’s
just
wild
that
this
happened
in
Biglaw.
A
single
bite
is
enough
to
get
a
toddler
written
up
in
an
incident
report
from
daycare.
And
if
the
biting
goes
on
multiple
times?
That’ll
get
you
kicked
out
of
daycare.
And
Biglaw
too,
as
it
happens.
Not
since
the
aughts
have
I
heard
a
tale
of
such
out-of-pocket
summer
associate
behavior.
There
were
strip
club
visits
and
expense
accounts
gone
wild,
but
obviously,
the
classic
of
the
genre
is
Aquagirl.
Above
the
Law
has
long
referred
to
her
exploits
as
the
bar
for
summer
associate
behavior
(though
the
Biglaw
Biter
just
might
take
the
crown).
For
those
that
were
in
their
preschool
biting
phase
back
in
2006,
Aquagirl
was
a
Cleary
summer
associate
who
drunkenly
stripped
down
to
her
underwear
at
an
event
at
Chelsea
Piers
and
jumped
into
the
Hudson
River.
Ultimately
she
had
to
be
rescued
in
a
boat
—
but
still
ended
the
summer
with
an
offer.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
A
tech
entrepreneur’s
12-minute
rant
on a
recent Law Punx
podcast
cuts through
legal
AI
marketing
nonsense.
Antti Innanen,
who
founded
Dot. after
practicing
law
for
several
years, said
what I have
been
thinking:
the
idea
that
AI
will
free
us
all
up
to
do
high-end
strategic
work
is
mostly
bullshit.
This
notion
masquerading
as
a
truism sounds good. We like
it.
We want it
to be
true. It
alleviates
the need
to
worry
about
what
AI
is
doing
to
our
profession. It
assures
we
will
all
have
jobs
in
the future gazing
out
the
window
and
thinking
all
day.
And
getting
paid
vast
sums
of
money
to
do
so. It’s in
every
press
release
and
white
paper
from
vendors.
But
I’ve
been
saying
for
some
time
that
the
future
is
not
all
that
rosy.
That this
truism
is fundamentally flawed.
So
I
was
pleased
to
listen
to
an
interview
of Antti Innanen on Law Punx. Innanen
is
a
tech entrepreneur who
has
founded several companies.
More
importantly,
like
me, Innanen actually
practiced law
for
several
years.
He
(and
I) knows what
it
means
to
be
a
lawyer.
We
know what
lawyers actually
do day
in
and
day
out. And
like
me,
he
thinks
the
idea
that
AI
and
automation
will
free
us
all
up
to
do
the high-end work
is,
to
be
blunt,
mostly
bullshit.
The Innanen “Rant”
In
a roughly 12-minute
“rant”
as
he
called
it, Innanen made
the
following realistic key
points:
• The
reality
is
that
most
legal
work
is
just
work.
It’s
not
tedious, it’s not high-end strategic
stuff.
It’s
just
regular
work.
What
happens
when
it’s
replaced?
• Even
if
you
accept
the
premise
that
you
can
separate
the
strategic
work
from
the
regular
work,
what
happens
to
the
lawyers
with
time
on
their
hands?
• High-end strategic
work
is
hard.
It
takes
incredible
focus
and
an absence of distractions. You
can’t
do
it
eight
hours
a
day,
day
in
and
day
out.
• Most high-end strategic
work
will
go
to
the specialists
in
their
fields.
The senior partners.
It’s
not
going
to
go
to
the
associates
or midlevel lawyers.
• The
reality?
There
is
not
an infinite queue of high-level
work
waiting
for
us.
What
will
happen
when
the
tedious
and
regular
work
is
gone
and
those
without
the
capabilities
to
do
the high-end work
have
little
to
do?
• If
we
truly
believed
the
truism,
then
we should be
racing
to
develop
the
necessary skills
in our workforce.
We
should
all
be
learning
how
to
do
the strategic work
since
that’s
all
we
may
have
left.
But
we
aren’t.
We
aren’t
in
law
schools
or
in
law
firms.
• We can’t trust
the
vendors
who
constantly
spout
the
truism
in
effort
to
allay
fears
and
sell products.
The
only
reason
they
aren’t
offering
products
that
can
do
strategic work
now
is
that
the
tools
aren’t
there
yet.
But
the
minute
they
are, rest
assured vendors
will
start trumpeting them.
The
truism
is
not
a
moral
or
ethical
commitment
on
their part; it’s just
a
technical
limitation.
Innanen believes
we
should
be asking hard
questions instead
of resorting to platitudes that make
us
feel
secure
and
safe.
Nobody,
he
says,
is
talking
about
what’s
good
for
the
profession. Instead, we
are
focusing
on
things
like
how
to
write
better
prompts
and
features.
Innanen’s observations
aren’t
just
theoretical
complaints.
They
reflect
fundamental
economic
realities
we’re
ignoring. These are
scary
observations
and
uncomfortable
questions
that
few
are
asking.
But
I’ve
been
saying roughly the
same
thing
for some
time.
Reality Number
One
Here’s
the
reality. Law
firms
built an economic
powerhouse
around
a
simple
formula:
more
associates
billing
more
hours
equals
higher
profits. That’s
why
firms
impose 2,000-hour
minimums
and
hire
first-year
classes
by
the
dozens.
But
this
model
depends on there being
work
to
do.
And
like Innanen says,
much
of
that
work
is
just
work.
Some
of
it
is
tedious,
much
of
it
is
boring.
But
most
is
billable.
But much of
it
will
become
non-billable
or
at
least
not
billable
in
the
way
it
is
now.
The
reality
is
we won’t need
that
many lawyers. The
reality
is
the
leverage
model
won’t
work
when
AI
does
the regular work. That’s an economic reality we
need
to
accept
and
plan
for.
But
law
firm
management
focuses
on
costs
and
distributing
the
maximum
amount of
partner
profits
at
year’s end.
Reality
Number
Two
The
second
reality
is
that
not
that
many
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
are
good at the strategy stuff.
Look
at
any
law
firm:
there
are
superstars
that
bring
in
business
and
power
the
machine.
Why?
Because
they
are
by
and
large
the
ones
who
can
do
the strategic stuff.
They
can
see
solutions
to
thorny
problems.
They
are
innovative
thinkers.
That’s
why clients flock
to
them.
But
then
there
is
the
great
mass
of lawyers in
firms
who
don’t
bring
in
the
work,
who
don’t
come
up
with
the
strategies and
thinking
that clients need.
These
lawyers
play
supportive
roles.
Why?
Because
they
aren’t
good
at
visioning
and
strategizing.
Or
they
don’t
want
to
do
it and are
comfortable
where they
are.
That’s
why we have
things
like
nonequity
partners.
Or
those
who
aren’t
on equity partner tracks.
These
are
the grinders
and
minders that
do
the regular work Innanen talks
about.
But
what
will
they
do
when
that
regular
work
is
gone?
The high-end strategy work
is
already
being
done
by
others.
And there’s not
an
endless
supply
of
it
in
any
event. Clients aren’t
going
to
pay
for
high-end
thinking
that
doesn’t
solve problems.
Certainly, it
is
true
that
for
some
lawyers,
getting
the
freedom
to
do high-end
thinking
will
improve
their output and service
to their
clients.
Ask
any
good
lawyer
if
they
have time to
do
all
they
could
to
help
solve
their clients’ problems and
they
will
tell
you emphatically no.
But
those
are
the high-end talented
lawyers
who
are adapt at strategy,
not
the
lawyers
doing
Innanen’s
regular
work.
So even
if
the
idea
is
sound,
we
aren’t
planning
for
what
it
really
means.
The Training Conundrum
There’s
another fundamental problem
with
the truism.
As Innanen notes,
we
aren’t
training
people
to
step
into
the
new
roles. So, all
those
who
have
done
the
regular
work
for
years
have
no
training
to
do
what
will
be
in
demand,
even
if
you
accept
the
idea
that
there will
be
this
great
amount
of
strategic
work
to
do.
Another problem:
being
able
to
do
high-end
work
requires
critical
thinking
skills.
It requires experience and
seeing patterns
that
can
be
extended
into
new
situations.
Yet
today
much
of
that experience is
dwindling
as
AI
and
automation
does more
and
more.
So
even
if
you
believe
that
AI
can
never
do
strategic
thinking
(I
don’t),
you
are
looking
at
a
future
where
we
have
a
bunch
of
lawyers
who
no
longer
think
like
lawyers
but
like
lawyer
bots.
The
Challenge
I
wholeheartedly agree
with Innanen that
law
firms
and
the
profession
better
start
asking
the
hard
questions
about
AI
instead
of
racing
to
get
the
newest
and shiniest new
addition.
We
need
to
stop
getting
AI
tools
just
to
say
we
have
them.
We
need
to
think long
and
hard
about
where
we
are
going.
Innanen’s right when
he says lawyers are
like
cockroaches, we’re
survivors.
But
cockroaches
adapt
and
evolve.
They
don’t
spend
decades
doing
the
same
thing
while
their
environment
transforms
around them.
We need
to
start
asking
questions
of
ourselves
and
AI
vendors
that
are
uncomfortable.
Questions like
what
does
it
mean
for
our
workforce
when
what
they
do
will
be
automated?
What
new
skills
should
we
be
developing
in
our
workforce?
What
will
our
business
model
look
like
when
the
leverage
model
is
gone, replaced largely
by
AI?
And
maybe
most
importantly,
what
will
it
mean
to
be
a
lawyer
and
legal
professional
in
the
future?
What
will
our
new
value
proposition
be?
Let’s start
asking
hard
questions
instead
of
business
as usual.
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.
As
the
year
winds
down,
the
legal
profession
is
flooded
with
retrospectives:
the
growing
AI
adoption
rate
by
solos
and
smalls
(now
around 70%),
ways
that
AI
is leveling
the
playing
field between
large
and
small
firms
(including
on
the
hallucination
front where
large
firms
and
solos
are
equal
offenders)
and
the
familiar
observation
noting
the shift
from
chat-based
tools
to
agentic
systems.
Much
of
this
commentary
is
accurate
—
but
it’s
also
repetitive
and
boring.
Rather
than
regurgitate
what
most
lawyers
already
know
or
could
readily
learn
from
AI,
I’ll
take
a
different
approach
and
examine
five distinct
business
models
that
offer
new
opportunities
for
solo
and
small-firm
lawyers
in
the
AI
age.
Let’s
take
a
step
back.
According
to Wikipedia, a
business
model
describes
how
a
business
organization
creates,
delivers,
and
captures
value.
For
decades,
law
firm
business
models
have
been
downright
boring,
largely
based
on
selling
time
in
billable
increments.
That’s
changed
to
some
degree
in
recent
years
with
flat
fees
and
law
subscription
models
like
Mathew
Kerbis’s The
Subscription
Attorney,
but
these
approaches
—
along
with six
new
law
business
models that
I
imagined
years
ago
—
never
gained
any
real
traction.
In
AI
era,
all
of
that
may
change.
And
in
fact,
some
would
argue
that
it
has
to
change
since
with
AI
cutting
down
on
the
time
required
for
legal
tasks,
billable
revenue
is
bound
to
decline.
But
AI
can
also
power
new
business
models,
or
revive
traditional
ones.
Below
are
five
law
firm
business
models
for
the
AI
age
that
can
help
solo
and
small
law
firms
diversify
their
offerings.
The
first
model
may
seem
counterintuitive
in
an
AI-driven
era: Artisanal
Legal. This
is
the
deliberate
embrace
of
high-touch,
bespoke
legal
services
grounded
in
judgment,
strategy,
and
human
insight
—
augmented,
but
not
replaced,
by
AI.
In
this
model,
AI
operates
largely
behind
the
scenes.
It
supports
research,
drafting,
and
issue
spotting,
allowing
the
lawyer
to
focus
on
what
clients
value
most:
interpretation,
advocacy,
and
trust.
The
lawyer’s
brand
is
built
not
on
speed
or
scale,
but
on
craftsmanship.
Think
of
appellate
advocacy,
regulatory
counseling,
complex
negotiations,
and
niche
advisory
practices
where
outcomes
hinge
on
experience
rather
than
volume.
As
AI
commoditizes
routine
legal
outputs,
the
perceived
value
of
deep
expertise
and
individualized
counsel
will
increase,
not
decrease.
Clients
facing
high-stakes
matters
will
seek
lawyers
who
can
explain why a
strategy
works,
not
just
produce
a
document.
Artisanal
Legal
practices
will
likely
charge
premium
fees,
emphasize
reputation
and
referrals,
and
remain
relatively
small
by
design.
2.
Human-AI
Document
Review:
The
dott.legal
Model
At
the
opposite
end
of
the
spectrum
lies Human-AI
Document
Review,
exemplified
by
platforms
such
as dott.legal.
This
model
addresses
a
persistent
reality:
while
AI
is
exceptionally
good
at
sorting,
clustering,
and
flagging
documents, clients
and
courts
still
want
human
accountability.
As
part
of
this
model, clients
come
to
an
attorney
with
an
AI-generated
document,
and
the
attorney
steps
up
to
validate
and
certify
results.
This
model
requires
efficiency
and
subject
matter
familiarity.
Dott.legal
is
priced
at
$199
for
a
document
or
demand
letter
—
which
doesn’t
seem
workable
for
anything
longer
than
four
or
five
pages.
And
if the
document
is
a
real
clunker,
the
revisions
would
be
more
involved.
AI
can’t
solve
the
problem
because
the
model
promises
attorney
review.
Still
at
a
higher
price
point
at
scale
and
with
caveats
as
to
the
size
of
the
document,
this
model
may
have
legs.
A
third
category
of
AI-enabled
legal
services
adapts
the
traditional
contract-lawyer
model
to
the
economics
of
modern
legal
technology.
As
the
cost
of
advanced
AI
research
and
discovery
tools
continues
to
rise
—
often
$1,000
per
month
or
more
—
many
solos
and
small
firms
cannot
justify
maintaining
subscriptions
for
occasional
use.
What
they can justify
is
paying
for
the
output
of
those
tools
when
a
matter
requires
it.
Under
this
model,
an
attorney
makes
the
upfront
investment
in
premium
AI-enhanced
platforms
—
such
as
comprehensive
Westlaw
products,
AI
research
tools,
or
enterprise
discovery
systems
—
and
offers
the
benefit
of
those
tools
to
other
lawyers
on
a
contract
basis.
The
service
is
sold
not
as
software
access,
but
as
lawyer-supervised
work
product,
preserving
ethical
compliance
and
professional
accountability.
For
example,
a
lawyer
with
a
full
Westlaw
AI
suite
could
provide
per-diem
or
project-based
services
such
as
50-state
surveys,
multijurisdictional
research
memoranda,
issue-spotting
analyses,
or
first-draft
briefs,
complete
with
supporting
authorities
and
research
trails.
The
hiring
firm
receives
high-quality,
defensible
work
product
without
incurring
ongoing
technology
costs,
while
the
providing
lawyer
monetizes
both
expertise
and
infrastructure.
The
same
model
applies
to
discovery
and
litigation
support.
A
lawyer
with
access
to
an
advanced
discovery
platform
can
manage
document
review,
privilege
analysis,
and
issue
tagging
for
other
firms,
using
AI
to
accelerate
review
while
maintaining
human
oversight.
Rather
than
each
firm
purchasing
and
mastering
complex
discovery
software,
discrete
litigation
functions
are
outsourced
to
a
specialist
who
already
has
the
tools
and
systems
in
place.
This
shared-access
approach
transforms
expensive
AI
platforms
into
revenue-generating
assets
and
creates
a
new
class
of
supercharged
contract
legal
services
—
faster,
more
scalable,
and
accessible
to
firms
that
do
not
need
full-time
ownership
of
advanced
legal
technology.
4.
Next-Generation
Law
Practices
Capturing
Older
Lawyer
Knowledge
One
of
the
most
underappreciated
opportunities
in
the
AI
age
is
the capture
and
reuse
of
institutional
legal
knowledge,
particularly
from
senior
and
retiring
lawyers.
Decades
of
expertise
—
how
to
handle
regulators,
negotiate
industry-specific
contracts,
or
manage
recurring
disputes
—
often
walks
out
the
door
when
a
lawyer
retires.
In
this
model,
law
practices
would
acquire
not
a
law
practice
but
senior
lawyers’
knowledge
which
could
be
encoded
into
AI
systems:
curated
document
libraries,
annotated
precedents,
decision
trees,
and
training
datasets.
These
systems
are
then
used
to
train
junior
lawyers,
support
client-facing
work,
or
even
generate
new
revenue
streams.
The
practice
becomes
not
just
a
provider
of
legal
services,
but
a knowledge
steward.
This
model
is
especially
powerful
in
niche
regulatory,
industry-specific,
or
regional
practices
where
tacit
knowledge
matters
more
than
published
law.
It
also
offers
a
compelling
succession
strategy.
Rather
than
selling
a
book
of
business,
older
lawyers
can
help
build
durable
systems
that
preserve
their
expertise
while
reducing
dependence
on
their
personal
availability.
5.
AI-Forward
Law
Firm
Offshoots
Another
emerging
model
is
the
creation
of
AI-forward
offshoots within
or
alongside
traditional
law
firms.
These
are
not
full-service
firms,
but
specialized
entities
focused
on
AI-enabled
services:
compliance
audits,
internal
investigations
support,
contract
analytics,
discovery
management,
or
regulatory
monitoring.
The
offshoot
structure
matters.
By
separating
these
services
from
the
core
firm,
lawyers
gain
flexibility
in
pricing,
staffing,
and
technology
adoption
without
disrupting
legacy
billing
models.
These
entities
may
employ
technologists,
project
managers,
and
non-lawyer
specialists
alongside
lawyers.
Clients
benefit
from
clarity:
they
know
they
are
buying
a
process-driven,
technology-enabled
service
rather
than
bespoke
legal
advice.
Firms
benefit
from
diversification
and
innovation
without
existential
risk
to
the
main
practice.
Over
time,
some
offshoots
may
grow
into
standalone
businesses
—
or
even
outpace
their
parent
firms
in
revenue.
Conclusion
The
AI
age
does
not
point
toward
a
single
future
for
law
practice
or
for
the
wholesale
extinction
of
lawyers.
Instead,
it
opens
multiple
viable
paths
—
each
with
different
tradeoffs
in
scale,
income,
identity,
and
impact.
Lawyers
who
focus
solely
on
AI
tools
without
thinking
about
the
underlying
business
model
risk
missing
the
larger
opportunity:
rethinking
how
legal
value
is
created
and
delivered.
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
Foreign
Office
cautioned
against
UK
military
intervention
to
overthrow
the
former
Zimbabwean
president Robert
Mugabe in
2004,
advising
it
was
not
a
“serious
option”,
recently
released
documents
show.
Policy
papers
show
Tony
Blair’s
government
weighed
up
options
on
how
best
to
handle
the
“depressingly
healthy”
80-year-old
dictator,
who
refused
to
step
down
while
the
country
descended
into
violence
and
economic
chaos.
Faced
with
Mugabe’s
Zanu-PF
party
winning
a
2005
election,
and
a
year
after
the
UK
joined
a
US
coalition
to
overthrow
the
Iraqi
leader
Saddam
Hussein,
No
10
asked
the
Foreign
Office
in
July
2004
to
produce
options.
Officials
agreed
the
UK’s
policy
of
isolating
Mugabe
and
building
an
international
consensus
for
change
was
not
working,
and
had
not
managed
to
secure
support
from
key
Africans,
notably
the
then
South
African
president
Thabo
Mbeki,
documents
released
to
the National
Archives
at
Kew, west
London,
show.
Options
outlined
included:
“seek
to
remove
Mugabe
by
force”;
“go
for
tougher
UK
measures”
such
as
freezing
assets
and
closing
the
UK
embassy;
or
“re-engage”,
the
option
advocated
by
the
then
outgoing
ambassador
to Zimbabwe,
Brian
Donnelly,
according
to
the
files.
The
FCO
paper
dismissed
military
action
as
not
a
“serious
option,”
and
advised:
“We
know
from
Afghanistan,
Iraq
and
Yugoslavia
that
changing
a
government
and/or
its
bad
policies
is
almost
impossible
from
the
outside.
If
we
really
wanted
to
change
the
situation
on
the
ground
in
Zimbabwe
we
have
to
do
to
Mugabe
what
we
have
just
done
to
Saddam.”
It
adds:
“The
only
candidate
for
leading
such
a
military
operation
is
the
UK.
No
one
else
(even
the
US)
would
be
prepared
to
do
so”.
It
warns
that
military
intervention
would
result
in
heavy
casualties
and
have
“considerable
implications”
for
British
people
in
Zimbabwe.
“Short
of
a
major
humanitarian
and
political
catastrophe
–
resulting
in
massive
violence,
large-scale
refugee
flows,
and
regional
instability
–
we
judge
that
no
African
state
would
agree
to
any
attempts
to
remove
Mugabe
forcibly.”
It
continues:
“Nor
do
we
judge
that
any
other
European,
Commonwealth
or
western
partner
(including
the
US)
would
authorise
or
participate
in
military
intervention.
And
there
would
be
no
legal
grounds
for
doing
so,
without
an
authorising
Security
Council
Resolution,
which
we
would
not
get.”
Blair’s
foreign
policy
adviser
Laurie
Lee
warned
him
Zimbabwe
“will
be
a
real
spoiler”
to
his
plan
to
use
the
UK’s
presidency
of
the
G8
to
make
2005
“the
year
of
Africa”
at
a
summit
at
Gleneagles.
Lee
concluded
that
as
military
action
had
been
ruled
out,
“we
probably
have
to
accept
that
we
must
play
the
longer
game”
and
re-engage
with
Mugabe.
Blair
appeared
to
agree,
writing:
“We
should
work
out
a
way
of
exposing
the
lies
and
malpractice
of
Mugabe
and
Zanu-PF
up
to
this
election
and
then
afterwards,
we
could
try-to
re-engage
on
the
basis
of
a
clear
understanding
of
what
that
means.
So
we
could
try
a
variant
of
what
Brian
D
[Donnelly]
says.
I
can
see
a
way
of
making
it
work
but
we
need
to
have
the
FCO
work
out
a
complete
strategy”.
Donnelly,
in
his
valedictory
telegram,
had
advocated
critical
re-engagement
with
Mugabe,
though
understood
Blair
“might
shudder
at
the
thought
given
all
that
Mugabe
has
said
and
done”.
Mugabe
was
finally
deposed
in
a
2017
coup,
aged
93. Mbeki
claimed
in
2013 that
in
the
early
2000s
Blair
had
tried
to
pressurise
him
into
joining
a
military
coalition
to
overthrow
Mugabe,
a
claim
strongly
denied
by
Blair.
Kathryn
