In this episode of The Geek in Review podcast, hosts Marlene Gebauer and Greg Lambert welcome back Kris Satkunas, Director of Strategic Consulting at LexisNexis CounselLink, to discuss the findings of the 2024 Trends Report. The report, now in its 11th year, provides valuable insights into the legal industry, particularly focusing on hourly rates and spending patterns.

Satkunas explains that the data used in the report comes from the CounselLink Insight benchmarking database, which normalizes and anonymizes data related to matters and billing from CounselLink customers. This year’s report highlights significant increases in hourly rates, with firms relying more heavily on this lever to increase revenue and offset rising costs due to inflation. However, the degree to which rates have increased in recent years is noteworthy, with certain practice areas, such as M&A and IP litigation, commanding even higher rate increases.

Despite the substantial rate hikes, the report shows that blended rates at the matter level are not increasing as much, suggesting that other factors, such as staffing and leveraging, are helping to mitigate individual rate increases. Satkunas also notes that while there is a perception that high rates may drive clients to mid-sized firms, the data does not support this trend, with large law firms maintaining and even growing their client base.

The discussion also touches on the adoption of alternative fee arrangements (AFAs), which has remained relatively stagnant over the years, with only around 10% of matters having some form of AFA. However, Satkunas remains optimistic that the increasing pressure on corporations to manage costs, coupled with the adoption of AI and other technologies, may lead to a greater uptake of AFAs in the coming years.

Looking ahead, Satkunas predicts that rates will continue to rise, but the legal industry will likely see changes in the business model as AI becomes more integrated into legal practices. She emphasizes the importance of in-house counsel investing in the right talent to assess their needs and determine which technologies will best address those needs. Additionally, as AI advances, more transactional work may become commoditized, potentially leading to increased adoption of AFAs for these components of legal matters.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠

Contact Us: 

Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert
⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Threads: @glambertpod or @gebauerm66
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠


Marlene Gebauer 0:07
Welcome to The Geek in Review. The podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal profession. I’m Marlene Gebauer. And

Greg Lambert 0:14
I’m Greg Lambert. And we are very happy to welcome back. Kristina Satkunas, Director of Strategic Consulting at LexisNexis. CounselLink. Kris, welcome back to The Geek in Review. Welcome, Kris.

Kristina Satkunas 0:27
Thank you. Thank you thrilled to be here.

Greg Lambert 0:29
Seems like it was just this time last year that we had you on about the trends report. And so we get the new 2024 Trends report from LexisNexis. Council link is just out. I believe this is the 11th year my math is pretty bad. So is it the 11th year? Yep. See, guys. And Kris, you’ve, you’ve authored all of all 11. Right?

Kristina Satkunas 0:54
I have I know, it’s, it’s actually hard to believe that I think last year on cross the 10th year, kind of a shock to me to see us move into double digits. But yeah, it’s been a long time. And the report has pretty much always been my baby. It’s evolved a little bit over the years, which helps to keep it interesting. But yes, I have been the I have been the author.

Marlene Gebauer 1:17
So I mean, tell us a little bit about sort of the reasoning behind the report and how it’s how it’s evolved.

Kristina Satkunas 1:23
Yeah, so many years ago, more than 11 years ago, I was part of a team that had a vision that all of the data that flows through counseling is an asset, right? There’s an asset to all of that information related to matters and invoices that contains a lot of potential value, both for us at counseling, and more broadly, LexisNexis. But then for that industry, you know, as a as a whole. So we designed a benchmarking database, we call it insights. And within insight, we take all of the data related to matters and billing, when that comes to counseling, we normalize that data, we totally anonymize that data, and put that data into the separate database from a regular counseling recording database. And since then, we’ve been using that database for two primary purposes. So one that you may not be aware of is that our customers, every counseling customer has access to the benchmarks that come from that database. So it’s a standard sort of reporting module available to them. So they’re, they’re getting that data from that same data database that drives then the trends report, kind of the second big thing that we always do, based on that data to really focus on the metrics that are of greatest interest, they tend to be hourly rate related, not surprisingly, and then, but in addition to the annual Trends report, we do some ad hoc analysis of that data periodically, I’d say at least a couple of times a year, I’m digging through the data to answer some ad hoc questions, in addition to the trends report on metrics,

Marlene Gebauer 3:10
Can you give us some examples of the ad hoc analysis?

Kristina Satkunas 3:15
Yeah, so a, let’s see, I think it was about three years ago, somebody outside of our business, who I was talking to about Diversity, because it’s around the time that Diversity really kind of increased as a as a hot topic in our industry, asked if we could try to correlate billing rates, and, and gender and race data together. Because we, we clearly have billing rate data, it’s all over this Trends report. But we also are able to benchmark some Diversity related data for the Timekeepers that input that data into counseling, which is actually a lot because a lot of our customers require it. So I mean, that was one sort of ad hoc analysis that was really pretty compelling and informative that there is indeed a strong correlation between billing rates and gender and race and not in a non positive sort of way. And then another example, that comes to mind is one time I looked at, we called it the vendor tail sort of data. So what I mean by that is, typically for customers, they engage fewer than 10 firms for 80% of their work and percent of their spend is coming from a small number of firms, but then the rest of their firms make up what I call can in detail if you if you want to think about like a histogram, if your graph oriented like I am, how long is that tail, right? Because if you’re engaging 1000 firms, even if only 10 of them represent the bulk of your work. There’s a lot of administration involved in watching those. So we put out some statistics around that. It was separate from the, from the from the trends report.

Greg Lambert 5:04
Let’s jump into the report itself. And I think the kind of the big thing that jumped out was the amount of hourly rate increases for 2024. And the report talks about significant increases. I think a lot of us anecdotally felt that it’s good to have some, some numbers, some real data behind it. So why do you think this happened? And do you mind elaborating a little bit on on factors that you think increased in in 24? And how that differed from previous years?

Kristina Satkunas 5:37
Right? Yes. So I mean, I’m sure that when you first read the report, you’re just yawning. Wow, it’s not exactly earth shattering news that hourly rates are going up. Again, right, the sky is falling hourly rates are going up. And they’re going up a lot right there that that’s and I’ll elaborate a little bit more on just how much more they’ve gone up in the last year than they had in the past. On the surface, I think it’s fairly obvious as to why firms are increasing, why they increase their rates, right? It’s a lever, that law firms have always used to increase their revenue. And like any other business, law firms are under pressure to increase their revenue to offset increasing costs. So there is I think, an expectation that rates are going to increase. But the degree to which they’ve increased in the last year or two, relative to in prior years, is something to really think about a little bit more. So it’s an indication that firms are relying more on that lever, than other ones that they have in the past to manage their profitability. And that probably varies by law firm, right? Well, the other revenue related lever is to increase work to increase share of of work that you’re getting from, from corporations and other other types of businesses that are out there. But that’s probably a harder lever to pull right to get more business in the door. And then the the other side of the coin is managing costs, right? And everybody, I think does a good job of managing costs. But when it comes to cutting headcount, right, that’s where conversations get uncomfortable. It is clear to me that law firms in general are using the rate lever a lot more than they have in the past. Now, why they’re not using the other ones as much, I think is, is a question that I don’t I don’t have the magical answer to but but perhaps some of your audience well,

Greg Lambert 7:33
Well, Kris, I was wondering, you know, one of the things we’ve we’ve been hearing over the past couple of years, is just the hit from inflation. Just going out on a limb and guessing here, but do you think 2024, or 2023-2024, was just a time where everyone just expected larger than normal increases? And so this was kind of not just the regular lever that we pulled, but just one that everyone expects us to pull?

Kristina Satkunas 8:00
Yeah, it’s a good point. And I didn’t I didn’t mention it. Right, that is part of so costs have gone up more because of inflation, rather than have to cut heads, right. It’s it’s trying to increase revenue to prevent the need to do that. Yeah, I definitely think that’s coming into play as to why rates have gone up more in 2023. And in the year before that, as well, which is about the time that we saw these big increases in inflation. But you know, I think what the other side of that is that corporations are also fighting the same inflation, right. So so the increase in, in law firm rates is increasing their costs at disproportionate amounts as well, so that it’s a hard thing to manage within businesses, whether those businesses be law firms or other types of businesses. But yeah, it’s a good call.

Marlene Gebauer 8:51
Yeah, I want to dig in a little bit about sort of why those levers are pulled. I mean, is it does have to do with, okay, that’s what everybody else is doing. So we’re going to do that, too. How does the impact of specific practice areas influence the setting of hourly rates by law firms? You know, are there particular areas in general where rates are rising more sharply? Or does it depend on the focus and reputation of the firm or even individual practitioners? And what might be the driver? What might be driving these differences?

Kristina Satkunas 9:26
Yeah, practices are definitely a big differentiator. That in the fact is that there have always been certain practices that are perceived as higher value or whenever you might want to turn them but the market bears much higher rates for those practices, and they tend to be transactional ones like m&a, commercial, corporate, regulatory right there. They’re the ones that jump out but but also certain types of litigation like IP litigation, historically, there’s a much higher rate term people are willing to pay higher rates for IP litigation, the expertise and is needed or it to your point, Marlene, those practices, the probably the go to experts in those practices that I just rattled off are in the largest firms. Right? So it goes hand in hand that in the largest firms charge the highest rates, because they happen to have the lawyers that are in the practices that demand the highest rates, right. So those two things get tangled up together. But what I haven’t what I looked at this year that I don’t think I’ve ever done this before. Why, you know, I know that there is a those practices charge the highest rates, when we look at the rates, the amount to which they’re increasing, by which they’re increasing their rates, meaning on a percentage basis, right. So they’re already charging the highest rates, and then on a percentage basis, they’re able to command even a higher increases. And so it’s just the rich get richer, sort of analogy there. So as as an example. So we see, the overall average partner increase in 2023 was 5.4%. The average m&a partner increased their rates 8.4%. And they were already charging the highest rates, m&a commands done at the highest rates of all of the practices. So the median m&a partner rate is 2023 was $1,130, which is kind of eye opening a little bit eye opening to me, because it’s the first time that a median rate in any practice has crossed the $1,000 threshold. Right. $1,000 is totally common now. But to have the median rate be the at that level. So yeah, I mean, the it is interesting how these particular practices, because who’s going to walk away from your go to m&a firm, right, when you need them for a certain deal? If they’re going to raise their rates, chances are, you’re going to accept those increases from those firms, because you need them more than you do some for some of the practices

Marlene Gebauer 12:08
So like with this, this rate volatility, you know, among practice areas, I’m wondering what the broader implications are for law firms and their clients? You know, are some of these more supporting type of practices for the the high priced practices? Are they going to go by the wayside? How are firms going to be able to kind of justify kind of their existence if they can’t pull the same amount? Or if they are charging much more than say, you know, other firms that have similar practices in the market? Yeah. And I’m also interested in terms of predictability and legal spending and budgeting, because, again, this was a huge jump this year, you know, are we going to see more of that?

Kristina Satkunas 12:55
Well, I think one thing to keep in mind related to that we’re thinking about practice areas is that in times when transactions drop, right, that does become a real problem for large law firms in particular, right, you have kind of a concentration of partners and other lawyers that are in those practices. But as long as we are in more of a transactionally, rich sort of environment or economic environment, as I said, I think that corporations are going to, they need expertise to manage those types of matters, and they’re willing to pay for it. I don’t really see that changing in at least in the short term. But you know, one, as far as predictability. One thing that is really interesting that pops out from the analysis that I do is that while individual lawyers are raising their rates at record setting levels, especially in these high value practices, as I turned them, that the blended rates that we see at the master level are not increasing as much, or nearly as much so even for an m&a matter. I’m not seeing a What did I say an over an 8% increase for partners average increase? We’re not seeing anything near that level. I think it was more like a 2% increase for Mater level rates. So I mean, that means that

Greg Lambert 14:28
Yeah, that’s funny. That’s some funny math. How it How does that work out?

Marlene Gebauer 14:32
They’re leveraging something? I mean,

Kristina Satkunas 14:34
Yeah, I know it does sound like finding that. But I mean, that’s, that’s part of what makes me tick, when I’m looking at these numbers. Like that doesn’t add up. I wonder why. But it means that there there have to be other factors at play that are helping to mitigate those individual rate increases. So for many of our customers, who engage you know, a lot of law firms, they often require budgets for their matters. And as part of managing to those budgets, they pay closer attention to things like staffing. For example, if a partner raises her rate 20%, and now she’s charging $1,400 an hour, if that partner is limited to only be involved in that matter, when her very specific expertise is critical, right, that 20% increase, or that $1,400 rate doesn’t have much of an effect on the overall costs built on the matter. So we tend to think of leverage as we’re moving work away from partners to associates or things of that nature. But it really can be using partner a less than Partner B, right, that that leverage can occur within discrete groups as well. I mean, I think that corporate counsel are becoming more savvy to the levers they have available to them to help to not dictate the staffing, but to make sure that their law firms know that they’re paying attention to it. And asking for efficiency in his handling network is worth bringing up too, because we focus on I mean, every article you read is about individual rate increases, including, you know, the trends report that that’s our headline, right rates are increasing more than ever. But at the end of the day, it’s the big picture that matters. And it’s how you’re managing all the things that go along with individual hourly rates.

Greg Lambert 16:28
All I can hear my ear is Toby Brown saying, “This is how it should work,” its thing should be leveraged, down so that the right people are taking so in a way, I mean, this may be a win win, partners get their rate increase, but at the same time, you know, work can flow to where it needs to flow. Because I think if the partner rates are too low, the clients are expecting the partner to be doing most of not all the work because that’s who they know, and that’s who they trust.

Kristina Satkunas 17:00
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And you’re freeing up, then those really high end partners to go find more business or, you know, do things that are more appropriate for their level of expertise. Totally agree. Yep.

Marlene Gebauer 17:13
So do you think the adoption of emerging tech tools will influence the discussion around pricing? So I’ll give you an example Damien RIehl was on yesterday, and we were talking and it’s like he was talking about in house, you know, organizations, they compare pleadings to what their counsel has provided using AI. So and if if the AI is surfacing all the correct defenses or their emotional responses, you know, if if the work substantially the same, then they may not pay for that, you know, they’re only going to pay for what was truly value add from their counsel. So how do we get around these rate increases? Knowing that, you know, we have this type of capability to to just do things very quickly and very thoroughly?

Kristina Satkunas 18:05
Yeah, that is, it’s a conundrum. So I think that a, you know, our corporate customers are viewing that as cost savings opportunity, right? That we could be doing some of this work in house, we can get our own value or drive around Valley, and you don’t need to engage a law firm to do this. However, I mean, I would use I would the caveat I would give to that is, in my experience talking to our customer base, I think that corporate counsel are looking, they’re looking for best practices, right? They really want to know which technology and under what circumstances that it’s going to work, I think there’s still a lot of hesitation. So I do think that this will begin to affect those decisions that are made about rates. On the flip side of it, right, so I’m talking about if corporate counsel start using some of that technology, but also law firms will start utilizing that technology. Right. So what does that do to rates and expectations around rates for law firms? And what does that do to the law firm business model? You know, Greg, and I, you and I have talked about about that in greater depths in the past? I don’t have a crystal ball for that. But it is certainly it is there is no question that that is going to be applying pressure to the to the business models. We know it in our industry.

Greg Lambert 19:25
Yeah. Well keep keep on to that crystal ball, because we’ll come back to that that in a minute. Well, we talked about technology, we talked about hours, we talked about the hours causing a shift from big dollar partners to maybe you know, not not as big dollar partners. But one of the things that you constantly hear in conversations is that well, big law firms are going to go and become so expensive that this is going to open up the opportunity for all of the in house counsel to go flock to more of the middle market. Share err, but your reports showing that that may not be the case, at least for, you know, the past year. So why is it that you know, the law firms, big law firms are able to maintain and even grow the client base a little bit, even though they’re in they’re increasing their hours while your clients staying with them?

Kristina Satkunas 20:23
Yeah, it’s a great question. And it’s somewhere on my desk here. I have a article that came out sometime in the last couple of months with a headline that was saying a large law firm is starting to the Tillu share, they better beware sort of thing. And it’s part of why I looked at that data as part of our our trends report this year, because I thought, huh, we haven’t seen that in the past. Is that really happening? And you’re right, we don’t see it happening. Overall, we do see that big law and by big law, or large law, whatever you want to call it. We mean, firms that have 750 lawyers or more, and that is roughly Canada and law 100 sort of size bucket. But you know, I think we’ve alluded to this already. I think there are a few reasons that the obvious one is general counsel’s they are tasked with managing costs, but I would argue that optimizing results and protecting your organization, probably Trump’s managing costs to

Greg Lambert 21:23
no one’s been fired for hiring Kirkland or Latham.

Kristina Satkunas 21:27
Right, we’ve all heard it. They’re having good results with Kirkland or Latham, and they’ve worked with them for a long time, you know, it’s it would be a risk to change firms, regardless of the reputation of the the other firm in maybe they’ll take that risk if they are really under pressure to manage costs. And then the other part of it is, you know, not just that we’ve had good results, but there’s institutional knowledge that builds up over the years, that is a really important part of that decision as to which counsel to retain, to less of a degree. But another thing that comes into play is that many legal departments look to give a lot of work to one or a handful of firms across many practices, because they’re, they’re leveraging a volume discount, right. And so that incentivizes them to give them more work. And assuming that that volume discount really is a makes it worthwhile, I think it’s a legitimate reason to double down to hold on to those relationships. I do want to mention that. So in this report, if anybody reads into the the details of it in the section, where we talked about that analysis of the fact that Yep, large log continues to grow their share of wallet of spend, one thing I decided to do was to look more to a leading indicator of that, if you if you will, if I can connect geek out with that sort of terminology.

Greg Lambert 23:01
You’re on the right podcast for that.

Kristina Satkunas 23:05
So right, it’s a lagging indicator to say, oh, last year large law grew their market share. But a more leading indicator would be What about for the new matters that opened up last year? Which law firms were assigned those those matters? So can we look at the spend associated just with new matters. And there is a, I think, a glimmer of hope here hope that this prediction that companies will start to use kind of mid law firms, there is a slight shift from the largest firms. I’m not going to call it a trend because I don’t have enough years of data to show this and there is between practices. Some practices are using large while more summerlands and using it less, but overall, there is a slight shift. So so we’re going to add that actually add a metric to our ongoing reports that will become a another key metric in the trends report to show of the of the new matters that opened last year, what percentage of of the spend associated with down is coming from large law? So there may be a shift happening with new matters. I’m just not comfortable calling to try and at this point.

Greg Lambert 24:18
Well, speaking of of shifts and trends, going to jump on to I think one of your favorite topics, and that’s alternative fee arrangements. If I remember right, you’re pro AFA. Hi. Yeah. So it appears at least in a couple of practice areas, and it’s labor and employment and intellectual property, there seems to be more of a use of a ifas in those areas. So What trends are you seeing in the adoption of a ifas across to all the different practice areas in and what might do you think might encourage more AFA use?

Kristina Satkunas 24:56
Yeah, I’ve got my box of Kleenex is now revising. We’ve over this topic Yeah, sadly, there isn’t really in 11 years, there really isn’t an overall movement toward greater adoption of a ifas. So we we continue to see roughly 10% of matters that have some form of an AFA attached to them. And the two practices that you mentioned, though, are ones where I think corporate counsel has become more comfortable and continues to get more comfortable in establishing primarily fixed fees, due to the volume and more commoditized nature of employment work and IP work, the kind of patent prosecution work that lends itself to breaking it out by kind of stages and applying fixed fees to those. So you know, here, you know, so those are, at least there’s that little bit of, of attraction that we’re seeing in those areas, but it’s not enough to bring up the overall average. And I was looking, you know, I was looking for more signs of hope. So I dug more deeply into the data and tried to find specific customers of ours or corporations who, who have believed more toward alternative pricing, and have had success with them. And I reached out to to get some feedback and input from them. And mean, their feedback is consistent, that it requires a, I guess, I would say, an intentional effort, led by generally led by the in house lawyers, with support from their operational teams to help to validate the pricing arrangements that they that they get to. But you have to have that effort led by the in house attorneys, and then being willing to kind of pivot and try new things. If you’re not achieving the intended results, either the cost savings or the outcomes that you were hoping for. So I do still have hope that the industry is going to move forward in that direction. I’ll be it slowly. I don’t think there are enough evangelists speaking to not just the benefits of AFAs, but like, what is the process? What is the analytic process that you need to go through to arrive at a pricing agreement that really can be a win win arrangement between a legal department between the General Counsel and in a law firm, so maybe I need to be one of those evangelists slightly more than I have been, but we need more.

Greg Lambert 27:35
Yeah, Jeff Carr is out racing his race cars somewhere. We need another one.

There are others out there. Yeah, yeah.

Marlene Gebauer 27:43
So while AFAs were not one of the the new significantly changed elements in the 2024 edition of the trends report. What are some of the new and changed elements compared to previous years? And how do you think the changes enhance the reports utility for its users?

Kristina Satkunas 28:06
So I mentioned I don’t think I was, I didn’t say this part about that analysis that we did related to share wallet in which size law firms are, are receiving different types of work. So that analysis was part of what we called a market insights section in the trends report. So it’s not one of the key metrics that we report on every year. But the idea is that, that we think it’s important to have something fresh and new to add to the report each year, in addition to the standard key metrics to think about, well, what else should we be considering and maybe that eventually will turn into to something that we look at an on an ongoing basis. So in this particular case, as I mentioned, so we will start tracking that new metric next year related to the percentage of spend from new matters coming from large loss. So I’d certainly love to hear from either view or any of your listeners as to other things that you that people might be interested in us, either on an ad hoc basis or publishing more formally in this report, that we want to showcase and be able to help people make decisions based on last year, we did the same thing where we did a market insight topic related to the number of lawyers who bill over the lifetime of a single matter. You may remember that. So yeah, I think there’s there’s kind of a never ending set of questions that come up, that we can dig into and keeping the report fresh and useful for our customers is definitely predefined.

Marlene Gebauer 29:45
Well, that brings us to the crystal ball question and you’ve

Greg Lambert 29:49
She’s probably got the crystal ball under all those reports on her desk.

Marlene Gebauer 29:53
She does, like I can see it’s it’s right under it’s right under the frame. But so, you know, given the trends identified in this latest report, you know, we haven’t even looking back to two other ones and seeing if there’s there’s any trends, you know, what sort of predictions? Can you make about legal industries direction in the next two to five years?

Kristina Satkunas 30:14
All right, well, I’m gonna go out on a limb here. And yeah,

Greg Lambert 30:18

Kristina Satkunas 30:22
The first place, I guess, I’m really not going out on a limb and said, I predict the rates will go up every year, probably even more. So yeah, that’s that I think we’re in that place. But I do, I do want to go out on a limb and talk about AFAs, right, so maybe it’s not going to be next year. But you know, I’d like to say that within five years, that we should start to see some uptick there. Because there’s just no way that corporations can continue to, to sustain these level of rate increases that they have, they have to rely on find some other pricing. And I think that AI is the other piece that that you threw out there, Marlene, that as we start introducing AI more, and having it become really part of the practices of of what lawyers are doing both for in house counsel and outside counsel, that that’s going to have an impact, as I said earlier on the business model. So exactly what my crystal ball answer to that is, I think that there’s going to be greater scrutiny to what that model looks like for law firms and what the effect of that should be for legal spending for corporations. And I, you know, I think that related to AI, and for legal departments in particular, you know, on the corporate side, I think that one of the most important things that GCs need to do is to invest in the right talent to help them understand, you know, whether new technology in which new technology is going to address their specific needs, right, rather than following the everybody else is doing this. So we should probably buy this software too, right to think about what their needs are, and make sure that they have the right people in place to assess those needs and what tools will best fit their needs. But certainly, there’ll be some changes coming to the technology that’s in place.

Greg Lambert 32:23
Yeah. Well, let me expand on that just a little bit. If you don’t mind, Kris. Because to me, I was thinking the the AI itself or the technology as it advances, to tie it back to the AFA is AFAs tend to work on things that are both in house counsel and outside counsel, deem as kind of table stakes stuff, just commodity stuff, labor and employment, IP, some some IP, maybe immigration issues. But as technology advances, I’m seeing maybe more of the transactional work may turn more commodity work. Do you think that’s something that’s on the horizon?

Kristina Satkunas 33:07
I most definitely do. Right? So it’s not it’s not to say that the entire transaction is commoditized. But there are individual components to it, that most certainly will be. And that’s that’s the key to start to figure out to break apart. The lifecycle of a matter. It’s a whole project management concept, right, of being able to determine which steps of that project really are more commoditized and can be handled by AI or or lower costing resources. Yeah.

Greg Lambert 33:38
Well, Kris Satkunas, from LexisNexis CounselLink, I want to thank you once again, for coming on the show and sharing with us the LexisNexis CouncilLink 2024 Trends Report.

Kristina Satkunas 33:50
Thank you.

Marlene Gebauer 33:51
Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for having me. And of course, thanks to all of you, our listeners for taking the time to listen to The Geek in Review podcast. If you enjoy the show, share it with a colleague, we’d love to hear from you. So reach out to us on social media. I can be found on LinkedIn or on X at @gebauerm and on Threads at @mgebauer66.

Greg Lambert 34:10
And I’ve decided just cut out the X and the Threads on just reach out to me on LinkedIn. That’s

Marlene Gebauer 34:16
That is definitely the best place you can reach me too.

Greg Lambert 34:20
So Kris, where can listeners find out more about the report when it’s out? And if they have other questions?

Kristina Satkunas 34:28
Yeah, I will. Second, your second and third, your your your answers that find me on LinkedIn. Reach out to me directly. I’ll be happy to get you in the right place to the right place. Also, you can visit There is in that counseling with two L’s and there’s an insights tab there that you could download the report from as well if you want to want to get it directly without contacting me.

Marlene Gebauer 34:54
And we give great thanks to Jerry David DeCicca for the wonderful music you hear on the podcast each week. Thank you Jerry.

Greg Lambert 35:01
All right. Thanks everyone