*
Trump
claims
he’s
attending
today’s
birthright
citizenship
arguments.
At
his
New
York
criminal
conviction,
he
took
over
closing
arguments
from
his
lawyers,
believing
he
could
do
a
better
job.
Let’s
see
if
we
get
the
sequel!
[Politico]
*
Taylor
Swift
sued
by
showgirl
over
Life
of
a
Showgirl.
[ABA
Journal]
*
The
Supreme
Court
agreed
with
a
gay
conversion
therapy
outfit
that
laws
banning
merely
talking
about
conversion
violate
the
First
Amendment
right
to
give
quack
medical
advice.
[Slate]
*
Boies
Schiller
looks
to
get
paid
for
massive
Google
victory.
[Reuters]
*
Republican
federal
judge
blocks
construction
on
White
House
ballroom,
noting
that
the
president
does
not,
in
fact,
own
the
White
House.
[Law360]
*
Law
firm
leaders
seeking
out
lawyer
hires
with
AI
experience.
Finally
there’s
a
market
for,
“spending
the
last
two
years
telling
your
grandparents
that
Donald
Trump
didn’t
really
ride
a
lion
in
that
TikTok.”
[Legaltech
News]
Top
Biglaw
Firm
Ups
Ante
On
Hiring
Law
Clerks:
How’s
$180K-$200K
sound?
The
Internet
Remembers:
Kara
Westercamp’s
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
appearance
is
marred
by
her
Twitter
history.
Federal
Judges
Are
Dabbling
In
AI:
While
there
is
some
familiarity,
they
haven’t
tipped
into
frequent
use
overall.
University
Of
Cincinnati
College
Of
Law
Gets
A
Name
Change:
And
a
huge
financial
gift!
Our
ATL
Madness
bracket
—
the
annual
March
tradition
where
we
ask
readers
to
vote
to
decide
a
pressing
legal
question
that
no
one
else
will
ask
—
has
reached
the
Final
Four.
This
year’s
question:
which
Trump
administration
lawyer
most
deserves
bar
discipline?
Sixteen
lawyers
entered.
The
field
is
now
down
to
four.
And
while
the
winner
of
this
bracket
does
not
receive
an
automatic
referral
to
state
disciplinary
authorities
—
though
they
probably
should
—
the
real
purpose
of
this
exercise
is
to
remind
everyone
that
local
licensing
authorities
are
the
last
line
of
defense
to
unethical
behavior.
At
least
for
now…
because
the
Department
of
Justice
is
trying
to
ramrod
a
new
rule
that
seizes
control
over
all
ethical
questions
involving
a
past
or
present
government
lawyer.
That’s
the
smoking
gun
admission
that
they
know
they’ve
set
fire
to
their
professional
responsibilities.
Voting
on
this
round
will
be
open
until
Friday
at
noon.
Anyway,
let’s
see
what
happened
on
the
left
side
of
our
bracket:
Probably
not
a
surprise,
but
the
nation’s
top
lawyer
is
also
the
one
that
readers
feel
most
deserves
to
face
ethical
consequences
for…
all
this.
Carr
did
put
up
a
fight
though!
And
almost
immediately
after
he
bragged
that
under
his
leadership,
“PBS
defunded,
NPR
defunded,”
a
federal
judge
orders
funding
restored
based
on
the
cuts
amounting
to
a
censorship
—
a
conclusion
that
could’ve
been
hard
to
reach
if
Carr
wasn’t
stupid
enough
to
brag
about
it
in
public.
Alas,
Pam
Bondi
moves
forward
in
ignominy.
And
the
Dow
is
no
longer
over
50,000
for
her
to
use
as
a
distraction.
When
I
checked
in
to
call
the
results,
the
margin
was…
1
vote.
A
single
vote
decided
this
pairing,
and
by
virtue
of
that
person’s
decision…
Alina
Habba
will
advance
to
the
Final
Four.
She
did
have
a
deeper
lifetime
resume
when
it
came
to
stepping
on
professional
rakes
for
Trump.
But
Halligan
had
really
done
a
speed
run
over
the
last
several
months.
That
sets
up
this
epic
battle:
(1)
Pam
Bondi
v.
(2)
Alina
Habba.
VOTE
HERE.
Meanwhile,
on
the
other
side
of
the
bracket:
Todd
Blanche
went
to
CPAC
to
gloat
that
the
Trump
administration
purged
anyone
who
had
any
involvement
with
investigating
Trump’s
crimes.
Former
FBI
agents
said,
“thank
you”
and
promptly
filed
a
lawsuit
claiming
they
were
illegally
fired.
The
problem
with
an
administration
based
on
performative
antics
is
that
they
can’t
keep
their
mouths
shut
even
when
their
buffoonery
all
but
guarantees
they’ll
lose
in
court.
We
give
Bondi
a
lot
of
flak
for
her
“Dow
is
over
50,000”
hearing,
but
when
it
comes
to
grabbing
a
microphone
and
making
an
embarrassment
of
himself
and
the
profession,
Todd
is
hard
to
top.
Even
Jeanine
Pirro,
who
made
her
living
as
a
dancing
monkey
on
cable
news,
could
barely
make
a
dent
against
Todd.
I’m
not
so
sure
about
this
one.
Emil
Bove
intervened
personally
to
kill
the
Eric
Adams
investigation,
prompting
the
SDNY
USAO
leadership
and
essentially
all
of
the
public
corruption
staff
at
Justice
to
quit
in
protest.
He
reportedly
told
Justice
Department
officials
to
tell
judges
“f**k
you”
if
they
issued
court
orders
blocking
facially
illegal
administration
policies.
And
then
his
reward
was
a
lifetime
appointment
to
the
Third
Circuit.
Mizelle’s
role
in
the
Make
Justice
Clowns
Again
movement,
while
significant,
sort
of
pales
in
comparison.
But
the
people
have
spoken.
And
so
we’re
set
with:
(1)
Todd
Blanche
v.
(2)
Chad
Mizelle.
VOTE
HERE.
Voting
for
the
Final
Four
will
be
open
through
Friday
at
noon.
At
that
point,
we’ll
post
the
championship
round
and
have
you
all
vote
on
that
over
the
weekend.
Few
law
firm
executives
have
the
potential
impact
on
the
success
of
law
firm
strategic
planning
that
legal
marketing
professionals
have.
You
understand
market
dynamics,
have
a
strong
handle
on
the
firm’s
competitive
position,
possess
insights
into
client
needs
and
demands,
and
have
a
breadth
of
knowledge
about
the
firm’s
practices
and
industry
experience
that
is
typically
unmatched
in
the
firm.
There
are
five
key
areas
where
you,
as
a
legal
marketing
professional,
can
contribute
the
most
value
to
strategic
planning
committees
for
both
firm
and
practice
group
strategic
plans.
1.
Keeping
Strategy
Externally
Focused
Even
in
the
most
sophisticated
law
firms,
the
tendency
is
often
to
devolve
into
a
process
of
hashing
out
internal
issues.
It
is
often
more
in
the
comfort
zone
of
law
firm
leaders
to
discuss
compensation
structure,
associate
development
issues,
technology
issues,
office
space,
etc.
While
these
are
all
important
to
a
firm’s
operations,
they
are
not
necessarily
strategic
in
nature.
True
strategy
requires
looking
outward,
not
inward.
It
demands
rigorous
analysis
of
market
position,
competitive
dynamics,
profitable
growth
opportunities
and
meaningful
differentiation.
Marketers
can
provide
invaluable
leadership
here.
You,
more
than
most,
understand
how
to
assess
the
firm’s
market
position
and
identify
competitive
advantages.
You
can
come
to
the
table
with
the
competitive
intelligence
necessary
for
fact-based
decision-making.
Marketers
can
highlight
the
service
areas
where
the
firm
has
the
greatest
market
share
and/or
the
best
reputation.
You
can
identify
gaps
in
the
market
and
suggest
strategies
for
the
firm
to
fill
those
gaps
in
practice,
experience
and
expertise.
You
can
steer
the
conversation
back
to
external
opportunities
when
the
conversation
inevitably
swerves
toward
internal
items.
To
be
clear,
internal
systems
often
need
to
be
addressed
in
strategic
plans.
For
example,
if
the
firm
decides
to
create
a
greater
emphasis
on
business
development,
but
the
partner
compensation
system
is
heavily
weighted
toward
personal
production
(rather
than
business
generation),
the
compensation
system
will
likely
need
some
tweaks.
However,
only
after
the
external
strategic
goals
have
been
agreed
upon
will
it
be
time
to
discuss
and
decide
whether
the
firm’s
internal
systems
and
resources
are
aligned
with
those
goals.
2.
Distinguishing
Between
Business
Strategy
and
Brand
Strategy
Business
strategy
and
brand
strategy
are
critical
to
a
firm’s
continued
growth
and
success.
However,
the
business
strategy
must
come
first.
It
is
common
for
strategic
planning
committees,
when
discussing
external
opportunities
and
differentiation,
to
go
right
to
a
discussion
on
brand
strategy
and
excitedly
start
to
come
up
with
catchy
(or
not
so
catchy)
taglines.
Goals
around
brand
strategy
often
arise
out
of
strategic
planning
processes,
and
there
is
some
overlap
between
strategic
planning
and
brand
strategy.
However,
brand
strategy
development
is
very
challenging
without
a
clear,
guiding
strategic
direction
in
place
for
the
business:
where
will
the
firm
invest
in
growth
—
geographically,
practice-wise,
talent-wise?
How
will
the
firm
grow
—
through
mergers,
lateral
acquisitions,
or
organically?
Marketing
professionals
can
clarify
when
business
strategy
discussions
creep
into
the
territory
of
brand
development
or
refinement.
They
can
clarify
the
attributes
and
application
of
both
types
of
strategy
and
keep
the
committee
focused
on
making
business
decisions
first.
3.
Leveraging
Client
Intelligence
for
Strategic
Advantage
Ideally
your
firm
has
a
client
listening
program
in
place. Utilizing
information
solicited
from
clients
is
an
essential
part
of
developing
a
strategic
plan.
Your
program
should
seek
to
identify:
The
firm’s
strengths
and
weaknesses
Clients’
needs
in
the
coming
years
Client
preferences
for
the
delivery
of
legal
services
(including
the
use
of
AI
and
other
emerging
technologies)
Clients’
perceptions
of
the
firm’s
brand
attributes
and
which
are
most
valuable
to
them
Interviews
might
reveal
that
clients
are
consolidating
their
outside
counsel,
creating
urgency
around
relationship-deepening
strategies.
Focus
groups
may
reveal
emerging
needs
in
an
area
where
a
firm
has
nascent
capabilities,
providing
substantiation
for
talent
acquisition
goals.
Utilizing
an
evidence-based
approach
makes
strategic
decisions
easier
to
sell
to
the
entire
partnership.
Consider
a
firm
that
conducted
systematic
client
interviews
and
discovered
that
its
largest
clients
were
increasingly
concerned
about
regulatory
compliance
in
a
particular
industry
sector.
The
firm
had
relevant
expertise
but
had
never
positioned
itself
around
this
issue.
This
client
intelligence
directly
informed
the
strategic
plan,
leading
to
targeted
capability
development,
strategic
lateral
hires
and
a
focused
marketing
campaign.
Within
two
years,
the
firm
had
established
itself
as
a
go-to
resource
in
this
area
—
all
because
marketers
brought
client
insights
to
the
strategic
planning
process.
Marketing
professionals
should
advocate
for
engaging
in
client
feedback
programs
to
inform
strategic
decision-making.
Whether
the
process
identifies
patterns
and
trends
or
it
identifies
specific,
viable
opportunities,
the
value
added
to
the
process
is
immeasurable.
4.
Understanding
Financial
and
Profitability
Metrics
Marketing
professionals
who
understand
the
law
firm’s
economics
and
profitability
multiply
their
value
to
strategic
planning
exponentially.
I
recall
years
ago,
when
serving
as
a
law
firm
director
of
marketing
in
an
Am
Law
100
firm,
one
of
our
team
members
who
joined
us
from
an
Am
Law
20
firm
argued
vehemently
that
marketers
did
not
need
to
understand
law
firm
financials.
I
could
not
disagree
more.
When
marketing
professionals
can
speak
knowledgeably
about
practice
area
profitability,
realization
rates,
pricing,
client
profitability
and
the
economics
of
origination
versus
production,
they
transform
from
tactical
marketers
into
strategic
business
advisors.
Financial
literacy
allows
marketers
to
contribute
meaningfully
to
discussions
of
strategic
growth
priorities.
Should
we
invest
in
practices
that
have
razor-thin
margins
due
to
rate
pressure,
lack
of
leverage
or
inefficient
delivery?
Should
we
maintain
relationships
with
marquis
clients
that
are
unprofitable
or
break-even
at
best?
Should
we
bolster
a
small
practice
area
that
is
highly
profitable
with
additional
investments
in
talent
and
marketing?
Participating
in
these
important
conversations
also
allows
marketers
and
their
teams
to
have
more
leverage
in
saying
no
to
burdensome
marketing
and
business
development
requests
from
underperforming
partners
or
practice
areas.
Understanding
financials
also
allows
marketers
to
identify
risks
for
the
strategic
planning
committee.
If
clients
in
a
particular
practice
say
they
are
satisfied,
but
the
firm
has
experienced
declining
realization
rates,
there
may
be
a
longer-term
problem
that
should
be
considered.
If
another
practice
area
is
growing
rapidly
but
is
experiencing
declining
margins,
it
may
indicate
commoditization
in
that
practice,
requiring
a
strategic
response.
Finally,
in
firms
without
pricing
professionals,
marketing
professionals
are
typically
on
the
front
lines
of
pricing
for
pitches,
proposals
and
RFP
responses.
They
know
firsthand
of
opportunities
where
areas
of
improvement
exist
in
determining
the
price
for
new
engagements
and
can
suggest
solutions
for
a
more
rigorous
pricing
process.
5.
Implementation:
The
True
Test
of
a
Plan’s
Success
In
the
end,
the
true
test
of
a
successful
strategic
plan
is
in
the
implementation
of
its
strategies
and
tactics;
and
the
reality
is,
marketing
professionals
will
be
responsible
for
much
of
this.
They
will
develop
go-to-market
plans
and
messaging
for
new
practices
and
offices.
They
will
create
campaigns
to
support
market
share
expansion
efforts.
They
will
design
and
implement
programs
to
deepen
client
relationships
and
improve
cross-selling.
They
will
develop
and
implement
the
brand
strategy
to
support
reputation
and
business
growth.
By
participating
in
strategic
planning
initiatives,
marketing
professionals
can
manage
expectations
by
providing
realistic
timelines
for
implementation
and
measuring
results.
They
can
advocate
for
adequate
resources
and
identify
specific
challenges
or
barriers
to
success.
They
can
begin
implementing
tactics
even
as
the
plan
is
being
finalized
to
ensure
a
seamless
transition,
from
planning
to
execution,
and
demonstrate
some
early
wins.
Moving
Forward
For
marketing
professionals
seeking
to
establish
themselves
as
strategic
partners,
the
path
forward
requires
ongoing
skill
development
and
proactive
engagement.
Develop
your
competitive
intelligence
capabilities.
Invest
in
understanding
your
firm’s
financials.
Design
and
implement
robust
client
feedback
programs.
Then
use
these
competencies
to
demonstrate
your
strategic
value.
Your
implementation
responsibilities
give
you
not
just
the
right
but
the
obligation
to
be
a
key
contributor
to
the
strategic
planning
committee.
Hopefully,
your
firm
not
only
recognizes
the
unique
value
you
bring
to
the
table
but
also
understands
that
it
cannot
afford
to
not
have
you
be
a
crucial
part
of
the
planning
process.
Marci
Taylor
is
a
strategy
consultant
for
law
firms
and
a
seasoned
legal
industry
veteran
with
over
25
years’
experience
in
law
firm
management.
She
provides
strategic
planning,
management
and
marketing
consulting
services
to
law
firms
around
the
country.
For
more
information,
please
visit www.mantralegal.com.
Recently,
I
encouraged
a
startup
CEO
to
have
his
developers
use
Claude
Code.
I
shared
how
another
founder
created
a
compelling
new
product.
He
architected
it
and
built
it
himself
with
zero
developers.
I
also
shared
how
a
large
company
fixed
an
important
script
that
had
been
unreliable
for
years.
It
took
12
hours
to
run
if
it
worked
at
all.
Within
two
weeks,
the
issues
were
diagnosed
and
fixed.
The
script
now
runs
reliably
and
is
100
times
faster. In
both
cases,
Claude
Code
was
the
transformational
superpower.
The
CEO
wasn’t
convinced.
His
concern
wasn’t
the
technology;
it
was
his
developers.
He
thought
they’d
see
it
as
a
threat,
so
I
expanded
the
metaphor.
Lightsabers
And
Killer
Robots
People
often
think
of
AI
in
one
of
two
ways. Using
science
fiction,
the
first
is
AI
as
a
lightsaber,
offering
an
unfair
advantage
in
a
sword
fight.
You
pick
it
up,
swing
it
around,
and
suddenly
you’re
more
powerful.
The
second
is
the
killer
robot,
where
the
machine
is
the
adversary,
something
that
replaces
you.
Developers
who
see
the
power
of
Claude
Code
may
view
it
as
a
threat.
But
this
applies
to
lawyers,
too. Swing
the
lightsaber,
and
you
draft
a
memo
faster
or
write
a
better
brief.
But
with
Agentic
AI
and
Claude
Code,
AI
is
becoming
more
powerful.
Lawyers
may
view
these
advancements
as
the
killer
robot,
too.
Iron
Man
A
third
view
is
the
Marvel
comic-book
hero
Iron
Man.
Tony
Stark
builds
a
suit
that
gives
him
superpowers,
turning
him
into
a
superhero.
For
developers,
Claude
Code
should
be
an
extension
of
themselves,
making
them
super
developers. When
embraced,
developers
are
empowered
to
become
architects,
more
like
a
CTO.
They
consider
design
alternatives
and
develop
various
blueprints
for
a
system.
They
settle
on
a
specific
design,
define
the
components
and
their
interactions,
develop
test
plans,
and
ultimately
direct
the
coding
and
QA. For
the
developer
who
wants
to
become
a
CTO,
AI
enables
this
by
orchestrating
agents
and
virtual
developers.
It’s
a
shift
in
mindset,
and
it
should
apply
to
lawyers,
too.
Lawyers
Need
To
Shift
Their
Mindset
Right
now,
many
legal
AI
use
cases
look
like
the
lightsaber
model.
Ask
for
a
draft.
Refine
it.
Maybe
save
some
time.
That’s
useful,
but
it’s
not
transformative.
The
real
opportunity
is
to
move
from
doing
to
architecting
and
orchestrating
the
work.
This
is
similar
to
the
developer
and
Claude
Code.
For
lawyers
to
think
like
Tony
Stark,
they
build
skills
and
immerse
themselves
in
AI,
including
agents
and
even
Claude
Code.
Those
lawyers
who
take
the
time
can
develop
superhero
powers
and
set
themselves
apart.
They
will
be
able
to
serve
as
master
legal
architects,
evaluating
more
options,
and
then
orchestrate
and
direct
more
work.
Larger
firms
with
greater
scale
will
also
build
or
buy
tools
to
equip
their
lawyers.
An
“Iron
Man”
lawyer
doesn’t
use
AI
as
a
shortcut.
They
map
the
problem
and
work
through
it
systematically
to
create
deliverables
and
advice.
The
lawyer
isn’t
just
drafting
using
AI,
they’re
orchestrating.
The
Suit
Was
Never
The
Superpower
The
Iron
Man
lawyer
remains
the
human
in
the
loop,
orchestrating
larger-than-life
actions.
Tony
Stark
didn’t
become
powerful
because
he
found
a
metal
suit.
In
the
Iron
Man
origin
story,
he
becomes
powerful
by
creating
and
embracing
the
Iron
Man
suit.
It
took
time
and
practice
to
master.
In
the
same
way,
lawyers
must
take
the
time
to
learn
and
adapt.
This
journey
won’t
happen
overnight. It
may
not
be
easy.
How
many
lawyers
went
to
law
school
to
leverage
AI?
Some
will
see
the
true
potential
of
the
superpowers
and
strive
to
achieve
10
times
the
output
of
the
average
lawyer. Zack
Shapiro
went
viral
earlier
this
month
with
his
essay
on
the
Claude
Native
Law
Firm,
highlighting
the
power
of
Claude’s
CoWork
and
Claude
Code
to
drive
“10X”
productivity
improvement.
Not
Every
Lawyer
Is
Equally
Exposed
Let’s
address
the
obvious
objection.
Not
all
lawyers
will
be
affected
in
the
same
way,
but
that’s
no
reason
to
ignore
the
shift. At
the
top
of
the
pyramid,
partners
whose
value
comes
from
relationships,
judgment,
and
access
are
not
going
away
tomorrow.
Their
leverage
is
built
on
trust
and
networks.
It’s
the
middle
and
lower
parts
of
the
pyramid
where
AI
will
have
the
greatest
impact.
Ironheart
And
The
Next
Generation
The
biggest
winners
may
be
those
early
in
their
careers
who
learn
to
operate
differently.
Marvel
introduced
a
female
superhero,
Ironheart,
and
the
character
Riri
Williams.
She
is
a
more
resourceful,
contemporary
version
of
Tony
Stark. Riri
had
the
proper
mindset
at
a
young
age,
and
so
do
new
lawyers
building
practices.
New
lawyers,
small
firms,
and
even
solo
practitioners
now
have
access
to
more
capabilities
previously
reserved
for
large
organizations.
What
This
Looks
Like
In
Practice
AI
expands
how
quickly
a
lawyer
can
interrogate
a
legal
issue.
It
accelerates
the
process.
For
a
litigation
team
analyzing
a
motion
to
dismiss,
the
traditional
workflow
includes
loops
of
research,
drafting,
and
revisions
circulated
before
a
response
is
filed.
Now,
imagine
an
Iron
Man
or
Ironheart
approach.
Instead
of
asking
AI
for
a
response,
the
lawyer(s)
orchestrate
the
process,
first
asking
for
the
universe
of
legal
arguments.
They
direct
the
creation
of
counterarguments
that
might
be
raised.
They
stress
test
the
reasoning
and
explore
how
similar
arguments
have
succeeded
or
failed.
Language
will
be
informed
by
logic
and
what
may
appeal
emotionally
to
the
judge. Lawyers
still
exercise
judgment,
oversee
each
step,
and
verify
the
work.
The
role
doesn’t
disappear;
it
gets
more
powerful.
Conclusion
With
Claude
Code,
developers
will
find
they
must
shift
their
mindset
and
embrace
what
they
may
see
as
a
threat.
For
lawyers,
the
lesson
will
apply
too.
Shift
your
mindset
and
begin
to
embrace
the
full
potential
of
AI. Don’t
use
AI
for
shortcuts
and
answers. Wear
it,
own
it,
and
direct
it.
The
difference
may
turn
out
to
be
the
real
competitive
advantage
in
the
legal
profession
over
the
next
decade.
The
lawyers
who
treat
AI
like
a
shortcut
will
produce
work
faster.
The
lawyers
who
treat
it
as
a
system
for
directing,
refining,
and
integrating
it
into
their
practice
will
produce
better
outcomes.
That
difference
will
help
define
the
next
decade
of
the
legal
profession.
The
real
risk
isn’t
that
AI
replaces
you,
it’s
that
other
lawyers
wear
the
suit
before
you.
Ed.
note:
Iron
Man
and
Ironheart
are
part
of
the
Marvel
Comics
universe.
AI
was
used
in
this
article.
Ken
Crutchfield
has
over
40
years
of
experience
in
legal,
tax,
and
other
industries.
Throughout
his
career,
he
has
focused
on
growth,
innovation,
and
business
transformation. His
consulting
practice
advises
investors,
legal
tech
startups
and
others.
As
a
strategic
thinker
who
understands
markets
and
creating
products
to
meet
customer
needs,
he
has
worked
in
start-ups
and
large
enterprises.
He
has
served
in
General
Management
capacities
in
six
businesses.
Ken
has
a
pulse
on
the
trends
affecting
the
market.
Whether
it
was
the
Internet
in
the
1980s
or
Generative
AI,
he
understands
technology
and
how
it
can
impact
business.
Crutchfield
started
his
career
as
an
intern
with
LexisNexis
and
has
worked
at
Thomson
Reuters,
Bloomberg,
Dun
&
Bradstreet,
and
Wolters
Kluwer.
Ken
has
an
MBA
and
holds
a
B.S.
in
Electrical
Engineering
from
The
Ohio
State
University.
I
reported
earlier
on
the
Jordan
Furlong
keynote
at
this
year’s
TECHSHOW
and
his
belief
that
there
will
always
be
demand
for
the
“human”
lawyer
who
can
provide
sound
advice,
be
the
advocate
for
their
clients
through
thick
and
thin,
and
who
will
walk
through
the
valleys
with
them.
But
I
wasn’t
sure
what
to
expect
when
the
writer,
podcaster,
and
personality,
Nilay
Patel
took
the
stage
on
Friday
afternoon
for
his
keynote.
His
conclusion
about
the
future
of
lawyers,
though,
was
remarkably
similar
to
Furlong’s.
He
just
took
a
different
route
to
get
there.
In
a
somewhat
disjointed
but
entertaining
keynote,
Patel
told
the
audience
that
the
real
value
lawyers
bring
to
clients
is
something
AI
can’t
bring:
the
ability
to
advise,
listen,
and
guide
them
through
ambiguity
and
lack
of
predictability.
Software
May
Remake
the
Legal
Profession
Make
no
mistake,
Patel,
like
Furlong
before
him,
believes
AI
and
the
software
that
propels
it
will
fundamentally
remake
the
legal
profession.
Patel
believes
that
the
similarities
between
the
creation
of
software
and
computer
engineering
make
law
a
tempting
target
for
disruption.
Law
and
computer
engineering
both
involve
the
use
of
structured
language.
Both
are
based
on
logic.
Both
depend
heavily
on
past
solutions
and
language
to
build
future
solutions.
As
a
result,
Patel
says
there
are
lots
of
similarities
between
law
and
computer
coding.
Add
to
this
the
desperate
get
rich
search
by
vendors
and
whiz
kids
to
use
AI
to
take
over
the
world,
which
suggests
that
much
of
what
lawyers
do
may
be
automated
and
AI
replicated.
What’s
more,
Patel
touched
on
something
I
had
not
thought
of:
vibe
coding
(building
software
through
plain-language
AI
prompts
rather
than
traditional
code)
can
make
everyone
a
coder
and
an
AI
platform
developer.
Software
that
used
to
be
out
of
the
cost
range
of
many
businesses
and,
for
that
matter,
law
firms,
is
now
affordable
and
obtainable
by
everyone.
The
result
is
the
belief
that
more
and
more
legal
work
can
be
brought
to
heel
in
the
brave
new
world
of
GenAI.
That
software
can
replace
almost
everything
lawyers
do.
But
not
so
fast,
says
Patel.
Software
Won’t
Eat
Legal
Before
we
all
start
vibe
coding,
Patel
pointed
out
some
fundamental
differences
between
what
lawyers
do
and
what
AI
can
provide.
Law
is
built
upon
ambiguity,
which
software
abhors.
It’s
deterministic:
try
two
cases
on
the
same
set
of
facts
and
you
could
very
well
get
two
different
results.
And
unlike
software
which
is
often
buggy,
makes
mistakes,
and
is
sometimes
even
shipped
and
sold
without
knowing
for
sure
if
it
will
work,
lawyers
have
to
get
it
right
the
first
time.
Every
time.
Glitches
for
lawyers
are
catastrophic.
A
lawyer
can’t
debug
if
they
get
it
wrong.
Moreover,
says
Patel,
despite
its
propensity
to
be
buggy,
software
and
AI
is
fairly
predictable.
Even
the
fact
that
it
makes
mistakes
is
predictable.
But
what
lawyers
face
is
just
the
opposite:
a
cranky,
disagreeable
judge.
And
the
zenith
of
unpredictability:
a
jury.
A
jury
that
may
be
swayed
by
everything
from
what
a
client
is
wearing
to
unfathomable
body
language.
To
top
it
off,
lawyers
have
adversaries
who
are
searching
for
and
waiting
to
pounce
on
any
slight
mistake
or
faux
pas.
What
does
all
this
mean?
Patel
says
why
we
have
lawyers
is
just
because
of
this
fundamental
ambiguity
and
unpredictability.
Ambiguity
and
unpredictability
that
software
and
AI
have
great
difficulty
understanding
and
dealing
with.
Yes,
I
know.
The
AI
champions
say
just
wait.
AI
will
soon
(if
not
already)
be
able
to
deal
with
ambiguity
and
factor
in
unpredictability.
But
Patel
says
there
is
something
else
to
what
good
lawyers
provide.
A
something
more
that
is
key
to
the
future
of
lawyers.
And
it
came
from
Patel’s
wife.
The
Lawyer
Therapist
Patel’s
wife
is
a
family
lawyer.
He
asked
her
one
time
if
she
was
concerned
that
she
could
be
replaced
by
a
robot.
Her
response
was,
“I’m
actually
as
much
a
therapist
as
I
am
a
lawyer.”
Meaning
that
people
came
to
her
with
very
personal
and
intimate
problems.
What
they
wanted
was
not
just
a
recitation
of
the
law.
They
wanted
someone
to
listen
to
them.
To
let
them
vent.
And
then
take
their
rage,
their
fear,
and
their
desires
and
navigate
all
of
that
through
a
legal
system
that
itself
is
ambiguous
and
unpredictable.
She’s
right.
Over
the
years,
I
learned
that
all
clients
want
is
to
tell
their
side
of
the
story.
They
want
a
lawyer
who
will
listen
to
them
and
take
their
side.
They
need
a
lawyer
to
do
all
that
and
then
tell
them
what
can
be
done
in
a
way
that
assures
them
their
lawyer
is
squarely
on
their
side.
The
lawyer
then
does
just
what
Patel’s
wife
articulated:
navigate
a
tricky
legal
venue.
And
it’s
not
just
true
for
family
lawyers.
I
had
partner
whose
legal
skills
other
lawyers
in
the
firm
scoffed
at.
But
Fred
was
one
of
the
leading
rainmakers
in
the
firm.
Why?
He
never
told
a
client
something
could
not
be
done.
Instead,
he
looked
for
ways
to
accomplish
some
if
not
all
of
what
he
understood
the
client
really
wanted
and
needed.
That’s
why
they
came
to
him.
That
was
certainly
true
for
me.
Indeed,
during
the
Q
and
A
portion
of
Patel’s
talk,
an
in-house
corporate
lawyer
said
the
same
thing.
Clients
want
answers
and
help
from
us,
not
a
regurgitation
of
what
the
law
forbids.
Patel
saw
this.
Furlong
sees
the
same
thing.
Two
bookends
to
the
future
of
law.
It
Ain’t
Easy
But
here’s
the
thing:
it
ain’t
easy.
Being
the
human
lawyer
that
Furlong
described
and
Patel
talked
about
is
hard
to
get
right.
And
it’s
going
to
get
even
harder
as
clients
second
guess
their
lawyer
with
GenAI
tools.
But
AI
software
can’t
do
this
yet,
and
maybe
not
ever.
The
fact
of
the
matter,
says
Patel,
is
that
GenAI
may
talk
and
act
like
a
human,
but
it
neither
is
one
nor
sentient,
despite
what
some
AI
proponents
scream.
The
bottom
line:
for
all
its
unpredictability
and
frustrations,
law
is
still
a
human
business.
A
business
based
on
human-to-human
intersections
and
relationships.
Interactions
and
relationships
that
are
just
as
unpredictable
and
full
of
ambiguity
as
the
law.
And
that,
says
Patel
(and
Furlong),
is
why
there
will
always
be
a
need
for
the
kind
of
lawyer
that
can
give
clients
what
they
really
need.
The
Future
of
Lawyers:
It’s
Just
One
Thing
It’s
a
hopeful
message.
But
Patel
readily
admits
that
software
and
AI
will
change
the
legal
profession
—
and
everything
else,
for
that
matter
—
in
ways
we
can’t
predict.
But
when
asked
what
lawyers
can
do
to
prepare,
he
thought
for
a
minute
and
gave
an
unexpected
answer.
He
said
sit
down
and
think
about
all
the
tasks
you
do
in
a
week.
Then
determine
which
of
those
tasks
are
repetitive.
Those
tasks
will
all
ultimately
be
replaced
by
AI.
The
rest
of
what
you
do
won’t.
Get
really
good
at
those
things.
Which
brings
us
back
to
Furlong’s
human
lawyer.
The
irreplaceable
skills
of
being
not
just
someone
skilled
in
the
law
(which
has
always
been
and
always
will
be
table
stakes),
but
someone
who
can
hold
the
client’s
hand,
who
listens,
who
walks
with
them
every
step
of
the
way,
who
has
their
back
and
interests
at
heart.
Someone
like
my
mentor
who
I
talked
about
in
my
discussion
of
Furlong’s
keynote:
Joe
knew
his
clients
so
well,
he
could
pick
out
a
book
for
them
that
he
knew
they
would
read.
What
Furlong
and
Patel
put
their
fingers
on
is
exactly
what
set
Joe
and
Fred
apart.
It’s
what
has
always
made
good
lawyers
great.
And
it
always
will.
And
no
amount
of
AI
software
will
change
it.
Furlong
and
Patel:
two
remarkable
and
hopeful
bookends
to
an
outstanding
TECHSHOW.
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
legal
help desks
evolve
from manual
ticketing
to
automation,
virtual
agents,
and
real-time
analytics,
the
desired
outcomes
are
often
greater
efficiency,
faster
triage,
and
streamlined
support.
Achieving
these
goals,
however,
can
lead
to
sacrificing
the
vital
human
connection
at
the
heart
of
delivering
exceptional
client
experiences.
Striking the
right
balance
between
automation
and human connection
presents
a core challenge.
While AI
efficiently
handles
and
streamlines
routine
support,
it
cannot
replace
the
warmth
and
trust
of
personal
interactions. While rapid
advances
in
AI
offer
both
promise
and
responsibility,
a
fundamental
question
remains:
How
do you,
in
your
firm, preserve
empathy
and
genuine
service
as
the
firm
adopts
automation?
Insights
from
an
ILTACON
2025 conference
panel
reveal
a
sector
in
transition.
Leaders
like
Chris
Myatt
(Director
of
User
Services,
Seyfarth
Shaw),
Amit
Patny (Principal
Solutions
Engineer,
Microsoft),
and
Nick
Davis
(Director
of
Service
Delivery,
K2
Services)
painted
a
nuanced
picture
of
AI
adoption.
Firms
are
piloting
automation
internally, leveraging virtual
agents
for
routine
tasks,
and
measuring
both
adoption
and
sentiment
through
advanced
analytics.
The
consensus
is
clear:
AI
is
a
tool,
not
a
magical
solution.
One
that,
if
thoughtfully
integrated,
can
empower
teams,
elevate
service
delivery,
and
redefine
client
satisfaction.
Panel
discussions
highlighted
key
shifts
in
help
desk
models.
Traditional
hierarchies
are
giving
way
to
agent-centric
frameworks,
where
AI
“agents”
handle
first-contact
interactions,
triage
issues,
and
surface
relevant
knowledge. Human
analysts,
relieved
of
repetitive
tasks,
focus
on
complex
problem-solving
and
relationship-building.
Effective
design
is
crucial; knowing
when
to
escalate
from
bot
to
human
is
as
important
as the
technology itself.
The objective is
to
enhance
human
capabilities,
ensuring
clients
consistently
feel
acknowledged
and
supported.
Firms
often
begin
their
AI
journey
with
pilot
projects
in
select areas, such
as
HR
onboarding
or
IT
password
resets, before
expanding
more
broadly.
This
gradual
approach
allows
teams
to
adapt,
provides
valuable
feedback,
and
eases
change
management.
Survey
data
reveals
mixed
opinions:
while
many
professionals
view
AI
positively,
concerns remain about
costs,
ROI,
and
the
impact
on
client
experiences.
Adoption
trends
vary
by
generation.
Younger
associates
are
more
comfortable
with
automated
self-service,
while
senior
staff
prefer
direct
support.
Real-world
examples demonstrate AI’s
transformative
impact
in
legal
and
professional
services:
•
Case
Deflection
and
Smart
Triage: Firms
deploying
conversational
AI
agents
have
achieved
significant
reductions
in
ticket
volumes
by
deflecting
routine
queries
and
surfacing
relevant
knowledge
articles.
For
example,
when
end
users
seek
help
with
common
issues
like
spam
or
password
resets,
the
AI
agent
collects
key
details,
suggests
solutions,
and,
when
needed, creates
tickets
pre-filled
with accurate context.
This
not
only
accelerates
resolution
but
enhances
the
experience
for
both
clients
and
analysts.
•
Support
Personnel
Empowerment:
At
K2
Services, internal
pilots
of
virtual
agents
have
reshaped
IT
support.
Analysts
spend
less
time
on
repetitive
data
entry
and
more
on
high-value
tasks.
Junior
staff,
often
daunted
by
complex
calls, benefit from
AI-generated
response
suggestions,
documentation,
and
incident
summaries.
This
levels
the
playing
field,
speeds
onboarding,
and
enables
teams
to
handle
a
broader
range
of
issues
with
confidence.
•
Sentiment-Driven
Service
Redesign: Advanced
firms
are leveraging AI-powered
call
analytics
and
mood
tracking
to
uncover
gaps
invisible
to
traditional
metrics.
One
panelist
described
a
situation
in
which
SLA
metrics
and
customer
satisfaction
surveys
indicated
high
performance,
yet
word-of-mouth
feedback
told
a
different
story.
By
analyzing
call
recordings
for
sentiment,
the
team identified and
addressed
subtle
process
barriers
(such
as
impersonal
call
scripts),
driving
a
dramatic
shift
in
client perception almost
overnight.
AI
as
an
Augmenter, Not a
Replacement
Contrary
to
common
fears,
AI
excels
as
a
partner handling
the
routine
so
humans
can
excel
at
the exceptional.
While
automated
agents
manage
password
resets
and
suggest
knowledge
articles,
only
human
analysts
can
interpret
context,
exercise
judgment,
and
foster
trust.
As
one
panelist
noted,
“AI
makes
my
job
more
creative
and
fun. I’m not
doing
the
manual
work
I
used to before. It’s about
elevating,
not
eliminating,
the
role
of
the
analyst.”
AI
democratizes expertise:
junior
analysts
receive
real-time
support,
while
experienced
staff
tackle
advanced
cases.
Success
requires
clear
communication,
ongoing
training,
and
a
culture
of
continuous
learning.
When
implemented
well,
AI
boosts
productivity
and
encourages
professional
growth.
High-Touch
Service
in
the
Age
of
Automation
Despite
the
rise
of
automation,
high-touch
service remains the
standard
in
legal
environments.
Clients
expect
empathy,
nuanced
understanding,
and
personalized
care, not
just
quick
answers.
Achieving
this
requires
seamless
handoffs
and
intelligent
escalation
protocols.
Best
practices
include:
•
Thoughtful
Escalation:
AI
should identify when
cases
require
human
attention,
considering
both
complexity
and
emotional
tone,
to
avoid
clients
feeling
trapped
in
digital
loops.
•
Transparent
Disclosure:
Clearly
communicate
when
clients
are
interacting
with
AI,
including
its
limitations
and
handoff
processes,
to
build
trust.
•
Personalization
at
Scale:
By
integrating
diverse
data
sources
(incident
history,
client
preferences,
prior
resolutions),
AI
can
surface
contextually
relevant
information,
making
every
interaction
feel
tailored,
even
before
a
human
steps
in.
Measuring
Sentiment
and
Experience
Can
you
measure
sentiment
and
experience,
going
beyond
traditional
metrics?
Traditional
customer
satisfaction
metrics,
such
as
survey
response
rates
and
SLA
compliance,
often provide an
incomplete view
of
the
client
experience. AI-powered
sentiment
analysis
bridges
this
gap
by
capturing
real-time
mood
and
emotional
tone
from
every
interaction,
whether
in
chat,
email,
or
phone
call.
Legal
tech
leaders
are
now
deploying
tools
that
analyze
natural
language
in
call
recordings,
aggregating
sentiment
scores
across
teams,
clients,
and
time
periods.
This holistic
approach uncovers
hidden
pain
points,
highlights
coaching
opportunities,
and
enables
proactive
interventions. Notably,
such
analytics
must
be
implemented
transparently, not
as
surveillance,
but
as
a
means
to
drive
improvement
and
empower
staff.
One
panelist
recounted
deploying
sentiment
analytics
and discovering that,
despite
strong
operational
metrics,
a
subtle
disconnect
in
call
scripts
was
eroding
trust
with
attorneys.
A
minor
adjustment,
personalizing
greetings
and
intake,
transformed perceptions and
dramatically
improved
satisfaction
scores.
This
underscores
the
value
of
combining
quantitative
analytics
with
qualitative
insights
and
human
empathy.
Building
an
AI-Powered
Service
Model
with
a
Human
Touch
•
Start
Small,
Scale
Thoughtfully:
Pilot
AI
solutions
in
targeted
departments
or
workflows
(e.g.,
onboarding,
password
resets),
gather
feedback,
and
iterate
before
expanding
firmwide.
•
Design
for
Seamless
Handoffs:
Define
clear
escalation
criteria
based
on
complexity
and
sentiment.
Ensure
clients
can
easily
access
human
support
when
needed.
•
Invest
in
Change
Management:
Engage
staff
early,
provide
robust
training,
and
foster
a
culture
of
transparency
and
learning.
Address
concerns
around
job
security
by
emphasizing
AI’s
role
as
an
enabler,
not
a
replacement.
•
Leverage
Sentiment
Analytics:
Use
real-time
mood
tracking
and
feedback
loops
to monitor and
improve
client
experience.
Share
insights
with
both
analysts
and
leadership
to
drive
continuous
improvement.
•
Maintain
Ethical
Standards:
Always disclose when
AI
is
involved
in
interactions.
Use
data
responsibly
and
prioritize
client
trust.
The
Future
of
AI
in
Legal
Customer
Service
Gartner
predicts
that
by
2028,
automation
and
AI
assistants
will
fundamentally
reshape
customer
service
across
sectors,
including
the
legal
sector.
Gen-Z
attorneys
and
staff,
raised
on
digital
self-service,
expect
both
speed
and
personalization.
Yet,
even
as
AI
capabilities
expand,
the
demand
for
human
judgment,
empathy,
and
high-touch
support
will
only
grow.
Legal
tech
leaders
must
prepare
for
a
future
where
the
line
between
human
and
machine support blurs.
The
most
successful
organizations
will
be
those
that
blend
automation
with
authentic
connection,
where
AI
empowers
people,
and
people,
in
turn,
create
memorable
client
experiences.
As
the
boundaries
of
what
is possible
shift,
the
enduring
standard
will
be
excellence
grounded
in
both
innovation
and
humanity.
Integrating
AI
into
legal
customer
service
is
not
a
binary
choice
between
efficiency
and
empathy.
Instead,
it
is
an
opportunity
to
achieve
new
heights
of
client
satisfaction
through
thoughtful,
balanced
design.
By leveraging AI
to
handle
routine
tasks,
surface
insights,
and
measure
sentiment,
legal
help
desks
can
free
human
agents
to
focus
on
what
they
do
best:
building
relationships,
solving
complex
problems,
and
delivering
white-glove
service.
The
future
belongs
to
organizations
that combine
the
limitless
potential
of
automation
with
the
irreplaceable
power
of the
human touch.
In
this
new
frontier,
excellence
will
be
defined
not
by
technology
alone,
but
by
the
harmony
of
machine
efficiency
and
genuine
human
care.
*The
views
of
the
article
are
not
those
of
the
law
firm,
but
those
of
the
author.
Nadia
Choptain
has
volunteered
with
ILTA
for
the
past
20
years
in
various
roles.
Her
current
role
is
as
an
ILTACON
2026
conference
coordinator.
It’s
just
like
a
bloodbath
of
firms
running
toward
the
top
10%
of
law
students
based
on
one
semester
of
grades,
and
mainly
judging
them
on
where
they
go
to
law
school.
—
Kate
Reder
Sheikh,
an
associate
recruiter
with
Major,
Lindsey
&
Africa,
in
comments
given
to
Law.com,
concerning
the
rushed
recruitment
timeline
that
Biglaw
firms
are
pushing,
which
has
forced
first-year
students
to
make
early
career
decisions.
Nearly
80%
of
summer
associate
recruiting
now
takes
place
outside
of
the
typical
law
school
interview
programs.
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.
The
University
of
Cincinnati
College
of
Law
has
a
unique
history.
The
school
boasts
a
former
President
and
Supreme
Court
Justice
alumnus
in
William
Howard
Taft
and
ranks
at
the
top
of
schools
producing
public
interest
lawyers.
But
their
future
looks
just
as
promising
—
a
very
generous
donation
will
help
the
school
and
its
alumni
make
even
more
history.
Forbes
has
coverage:
The
University
of
Cincinnati
has
received
a
record
$43.2
million
commitment
for
its
College
of
Law.
It’s
the
largest
donation
in
the
nearly
200-year
history
of
the
college,
which
will
be
renamed
the
Donald
P.
Klekamp
College
of
Law
in
recognition
of
the
gift
by
the
Klekamp
family,
in
honor
of
their
father,
Donald
Klekamp.
“The
Klekamp
family’s
extraordinary
generosity
honors
Donald
Klekamp’s
legacy
while
strengthening
our
ability
to
prepare
the
next
generation
of
talented
legal
minds,”
said
University
of
Cincinnati
President
Neville
G.
Pinto,
in
the
university’s
news
release.
“This
investment
advances
our
mission,
expands
opportunity
for
our
students
and
positions
the
college
for
even
greater
national
impact.”
The
endowment
will
be
used
in
ways
that
could
cause
the
school
to
jump
up
in
the
rankings.
Already
clocking
in
at
a
respectable
88%
bar
passage
rate,
some
of
the
money
will
go
to
helping
students
better
prepare
for
the
bar.
It
will
also
be
a
boon
for
grabbing
talent!
When
law
students-to-be
are
deciding
which
school
to
commit
to,
scholarships
and
affordability
sweeten
the
pot.
Especially
if
they’re
considering
a
career
in
corporate
law.
Congratulations
to
the
school
and
the
generations
of
Klekamp
lawyers
to
come!
One
small
request
—
in
the
process
of
writing
this
article,
I
went
down
a
research
rabbit
hole
and
got
a
craving
for
5-way
chili.
If
someone
could
have
a
plate
in
my
honor,
I’d
be
much
obliged.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boat
builder
who
is
learning
to
swim
and
is
interested
in
rhetoric,
Spinozists
and
humor.
Getting
back
in
to
cycling
wouldn’t
hurt
either.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
