This week on The Geek in Review, we talk with Kristina Satkunas of CounselLink about what the numbers are saying in a legal market that still talks about change while clinging hard to old billing habits. Kris discusses the hard data behind outside counsel spend, drawing on CounselLink invoice data and Harbor survey results to compare what legal departments say they expect with what the bills are already showing. She makes the case that the objective data is stubbornly clear. Rates are rising, demand is not falling, and the biggest firms continue to capture a larger share of work.
There is a widening gap between hope and reality. Legal departments may believe they are on the verge of controlling outside counsel costs, moving more work in house, or shifting matters to smaller firms, but Satkunas notes that the billing data has not caught up to those ambitions. She sees some room for in-house expansion in more routine areas like employment work, especially with AI helping legal teams absorb more volume, yet the largest and most sensitive matters are still flowing to outside counsel. That tension gives the episode much of its energy. Everyone sees pressure building in the system, but the old habits of legal buying and legal staffing remain firmly in place.
The discussion also gets into the mechanics of better decision-making, and where there is practical value for legal operations leaders. Satkunas emphasizes that data only becomes useful when departments have enough discipline in their enterprise legal management systems to categorize work correctly, clean out outliers, and separate different matter types instead of lumping everything into broad buckets like litigation. She also explains why finance data alone will not do the job. The real insight sits inside invoice-level detail, where hours, rates, firms, and timekeepers reveal what is happening beneath the headline spend numbers. For listeners trying to build a stronger legal ops function, this part of the conversation feels like a polite but firm warning that dirty data still tells stories, but some of them are fiction.
There is an obvious strain on the billable hour model that AI is placing on it. Satkunas notes that while average partner rate growth has hovered around 5 percent, top-end lawyers are often raising rates even faster, especially as firms try to protect revenue from the work and people they still believe clients will pay for. At the same time, she argues that alternative fee arrangements have remained stuck for years, though AI may finally force movement toward value-based pricing. If technology reduces the hours required to complete the work, then the old logic behind both hourly billing and many flat fees starts to wobble. That leaves firms facing an uncomfortable question, which is how to price legal services based on value delivered rather than time consumed.
We’d say that Satkunas is neither cheerleader nor doomsayer. She is a patient observer of a market trying to pretend nothing is happening while the floorboards creak under everyone’s feet. Her prediction is that real value-based billing will begin to appear in pockets over the next couple of years, even as firms continue squeezing what they can from the billable hour in the meantime. For law firm leaders, legal ops teams, and general counsel, this episode is a sharp reminder that disruption does not arrive with a trumpet blast. Sometimes it arrives as a spreadsheet, a trend line, and a guest who quietly points out that the data has been trying to warn us for years.
Listen on mobile platforms: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Substack
[Special Thanks to Legal Technology Hub for their sponsoring this episode.]
Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: Jerry David DeCicca
Transcript:
Greg Lambert (00:00)
Hey everyone, I’m Greg Lambert with The Geek in Review, and I have our friend Sarah Glassmeyer here. Sarah, I know you attend conferences all the time, but you have kind of a unique way that you use the LTH directory. So tell us more about that.
Sarah Glassmeyer (00:16)
Yeah, conferences are great, and I do attend the educational programming, but my favorite part, and the most important part for me, both for my gig and because of my interest level, is hanging out in the exhibit hall. And when you go to these exhibit halls, there are dozens, even hundreds, of vendors to keep track of. So this is a perfect use case for what I want to talk about.
And in life, if you’re listening to this podcast, I’m assuming you are interested in legal technology at some point. Every day there are new products coming out, new changes, new solutions. So the Legal Tech Hub directory is not just a beautifully curated and maintained directory of legal tech products, it is also a tool that you can use. When you are signed into Legal Tech Hub, you can create what we call the portfolio feature. There is a little star by every listing, and you just click the star and it gets added to your portfolio.
Within that, you can then subdivide it into solutions that you’re already subscribed to, ones that you’re just kind of thinking about so you can put those in your watching column, and also ones that you’ve reviewed but don’t like, not for me right now, but you still want to put them to the side without losing them. And whenever I update a listing, or my staff updates a listing, or the vendors themselves come in and provide an announcement, you will get notified about that.
So it is just a really nice way to keep things organized. Plus, we have a feature within that where you can keep notes. So how I use it is when I’m cruising around the exhibit hall and I see something, or I was just at ABA Techshow and watched the Startup Alley, I keep notes as I am doing that. I do not have to keep pen and paper. I can do it on my phone. I can do it on my iPad. And so it is all there now that I am back home and at my desk and can say, what the heck did I actually look at? And also, not during conference season, it is a way to keep track of things so you have one place you can go to, keep referring back to, and keep getting updated information.
Greg Lambert (02:14)
Well, that’s a great suggestion on how to use the directory. Thanks, Sarah.
Sarah Glassmeyer (02:19)
You’re welcome.
Marlene Gebauer (02:28)
Welcome to The Geek in Review, the podcast focused on innovative and creative ideas in the legal industry. I’m Marlene Gebauer.
Greg Lambert (02:35)
And I’m Greg Lambert. Marlene, we talk a lot of theory on here about legal pricing and where we think things should go, but today we’re going to get past that and get into some real hard numbers. And we’re thrilled to welcome back one of our favorite data geeks, I think that is what we coined the last time, Kris Satkunas. Kris, good to see you.
Marlene Gebauer (02:54)
Mm-hmm.
Kristina Satkunas (02:57)
Good to see you too. Thanks for having me back.
Marlene Gebauer (03:00)
So Kris is the Director of Strategic Consulting at LexisNexis CounselLink. She has over 20 years of experience advising corporate legal departments on how to use data and drive better business decisions.
Greg Lambert (03:13)
Yeah. And she is also the mastermind behind the CounselLink Trends Report, which she has been authoring now for 12 years. What’s the number now? Yeah. So we are excited to have you on and ready to jump into the numbers.
Kristina Satkunas (03:23)
It’s something like that. Yep, close enough.
All right, cool.
Marlene Gebauer (03:34)
So Kris, I recently sat in on a webinar that you did with Amy Borsetti from Harbor, and you were combining your CounselLink invoice data, which represents over $75 billion in legal spend, with Harbor’s law department survey data. And I think it painted an incredibly rich picture of where costs are heading. So when you put those two massive data sets together, the objective invoice data and the subjective survey data, that is the data dream. What surprised you most about the current direction of legal spend?
Greg Lambert (04:04)
That’s the data dream right there.
Kristina Satkunas (04:14)
So because I look at the objective data a lot, I don’t think there was a whole lot that surprised me there. I’m sure we’ll talk about that a little bit more here. But when I look at the survey data, one of the things that it said is that only, I think, about a third of the respondents expect legal spend, meaning outside counsel legal spend, to increase this year, maybe into next year, compared to the past.
Again, when I look at my data, year over year, the Trends Report shows every driver of spend is increasing. Billing rates keep going up aggressively. AFAs have marginal adoption. The biggest, most expensive firms keep on gaining share. So all of those things point to increased spend, right? And demand is not going down either. So that just says to me fundamentally, something has to change, right? If corporations are really going to keep legal costs down, it is not going to be business as usual.
So I feel like we are moving maybe toward more in-house work, using tech finally a little bit more to make work more efficient. So I think that statistic from the subjective data was probably the most surprising to me, that so few people think outside counsel spend is going to increase.
Greg Lambert (05:43)
You know, we hear that whenever there is a dip in the economy or there is pressure on the GCs to rein in costs, one of the things that gets rolled out, whether it is 2008, 2012, 2020, or last year, is, we’re going to handle more of this ourselves. And I have never really seen that come to fruition.
Now, I think I know the two letters that everyone thinks will make a difference this time, but do you think AI will enable that to actually happen this time around?
Kristina Satkunas (06:14)
Yeah.
Right.
Well, I mean, I do, but I think it is only certain types of work, right? So the higher-end litigation, the bet-the-farm stuff, the important deals, that is not ever staying in-house. But I think some of the more commoditized work, yeah, I have definitely talked to some of our customers who say they put together a business case to hire another attorney in their employment work or something like that. So yeah, those two letters, could this be the year? Are those two letters going to start really making a difference? Could be, yeah.
Greg Lambert (06:59)
Yeah.
This could be it.
Marlene Gebauer (07:06)
We keep saying it. It is like, this is going to be the time.
Kristina Satkunas (07:08)
That’s right.
Greg Lambert (07:10)
You made a point in the webinar that really stood out, and that is when clients go through competitive bidding with RFPs, when they focus pretty much primarily on cost, you were saying that could actually be a problem. A lot of people think of RFPs as a driver to get costs down. So do you mind kind of unpacking that for the audience, what you mean by that could be a problem?
Kristina Satkunas (07:44)
Yeah, so it is not just cost, right? Outside of the legal profession, if you were putting something out to bid, like an addition on your house, are you really going to go with just the cheapest bid? You are probably going to consider other factors as well, like their experience and whether you really think they are going to deliver what you want, right?
So I think customers are looking for, and should be looking for if they are not, in their RFP responses, how the firms differentiate themselves. At a minimum, it could be that firms are communicating that they really understand the legal issue and why it is an important matter to the client, right? Looking for that depth of understanding from the firm, and expertise of course comes into play, what they have done in similar cases. But I have also seen things like communicating information about, this is the legal team that we would bring to you to handle this. It is not just this one partner, but who would the team be?
There was a time not too long ago, and that included information about the diversity of those timekeepers, right?
Greg Lambert (08:58)
I was wondering, is that off limits now?
Kristina Satkunas (09:01)
I am not seeing it being asked anymore. I do not know that it is really off limits, but it seems people feel like it is, and it is not really being asked. But all of those things, we are not talking about bidding on commoditized, repeatable work, right? Cost is a factor. And I think Amy said that well when she was talking about this in our webinar the other day. The important thing about the cost component of an RFP, or just going to RFP, is it signals to the firm that cost matters, right? So they are going to pay attention to that. But all those other things are part of the equation and have to balance it out. So yeah, it is more than cost.
Marlene Gebauer (09:49)
So last year we talked about in-house teams using more data for benchmarking and for negotiation. That was sort of a growing trend. And I am curious if this year we have continued to see that. How common is it now for legal departments to have the kind of data hygiene necessary to pull this off?
Kristina Satkunas (10:18)
So yeah, it is an interesting question. I think that as more and more organizations, and the vast majority of good-sized organizations, are using some sort of enterprise legal management system, the configuration of that system kind of forces them to create some hygiene, right? Categories of types of work they are going to be billing, setting up some criteria for the types of bills that they will receive. And I think consultants who are helping set those up are getting better and better at understanding that the data that comes out is only as good as how you organize how the data is going to come in.
But I would say, just from a hygiene perspective, something like three-quarters of organizations that have an ELM in place are good enough in their hygiene. That sounds kind of gross to say, their hygiene was good enough, but you know what I mean. So a lot of companies let a law firm bill a flat fee as if it is hourly. So they do that, and then it looks like you have a timekeeper who billed you $20,000 an hour.
Greg Lambert (11:23)
Yeah.
Marlene Gebauer (11:23)
You
Kristina Satkunas (11:39)
That is dirt in the data that you then have to find a way to filter out. But those sorts of outliers stand out and are pretty easily eliminated. So I think we had at least one of these within the webinar that you saw. I like to use box-and-whisker charts to show the span of data, like hourly rates. And that outlier that I just described, that would be a whisker, right? It would fall outside of the box, right? It is the box that any good analyst is focused on and trying to understand, what is normal, what is actually going on.
So I think the data is better, and you cannot get hung up on those small outliers because they are always going to be there. You just have to have a way to identify them and focus on what is important. I do think that a lot of organizations could still do a better job at tagging their work. So, for instance, you could categorize, and I have seen this, litigation is litigation. We just call it all litigation if it happens to fall under that, but there are a lot of apples and oranges within litigation. So if you are trying to benchmark what you should be paying for, like IP litigation versus employment litigation, it is probably different. So you do need to separate things like that out.
So I think we are getting better, but there is lots of opportunity to improve. Data could always be cleaner, but at some point you have to say it is clean enough that we are going to start working with it.
Marlene Gebauer (13:06)
Very different workflows, too.
So if a GC wanted to start doing this, would it be their financial data? Would they be focusing on sort of the core areas? What would be the best way to approach it?
Kristina Satkunas (13:41)
So I would say, and I think that tagging of types of work is super important, right, to be able to break down your work into different categories. And then yeah, it is definitely the financial data. The financial data meaning what is coming in on the invoices, right, how many hours were billed for hourly work, how many hours were billed at what rates, and then breaking that down by law firm, by timekeeper, to be able to slice and dice it as needed.
As long as you have data that is clean enough. If you do not have some kind of ELM in place, then you kind of have to start fresh. I might almost just leave all the other stuff in the past. You really cannot go to your finance team and ask for this data because they are not pulling apart the invoice. They are picking up which part of the business should be charged for this work, but they are not breaking it down into the detail that you need.
Marlene Gebauer (14:41)
I often wonder where to start sometimes if you are using AI. Do you go back to historical data prior to AI, or do you just start with AI as a base because it is going to improve and see where you go from there?
Kristina Satkunas (15:00)
Yeah, right, right. It is a good question. I think I would argue for let’s just start with what we have now, because that you can fine-tune and feel good about what you are working with now. Going back, you have probably got a lot of noise in that data that might interfere with things, but you can start with what you have now and then maybe take a little slice of what you have and do a little pilot of some of the historic data before you roll it out full force.
Greg Lambert (15:30)
While we are fleshing the data out a little bit more, I am curious on your end of things, are you able to implement more of the AI tool strategy on parsing the data? Does it help you kind of see through some of that and kind of fix it on your side, or is it still too messy when it comes to you?
Kristina Satkunas (15:53)
Yeah, I mean, our product team, as we are developing our product, is certainly working on pulling AI into more and more functions of how CounselLink reads bills and evaluates them. So that is certainly going to improve and will continue to improve. For me as the data geek, I am still relying on the database that we create when all of that data gets scrubbed off of the invoices and gets put into this database.
But I am playing with AI tools for me to search that database and to organize that data and to look for trends. So I do not know, there are just so many opportunities with how AI gets used. But yeah, it is definitely playing a bigger and bigger role, and will continue to, in everything around analytics for sure.
Greg Lambert (16:56)
I am a little disappointed. I was expecting you to have a murder board up with all the data points and then red string connecting all of the different pieces. But next year.
All right. There was one thing that you said at the Texas Trailblazers meeting that we had a few weeks ago, and you talked about the latest data showing that partner rates, for a while there, were around 3 percent increases a year, and now they are right at 5 percent. And this is an aggregate across the board. But the real double-take moment was also seeing, and we talked about this last year when you were on, the associate rates and just how high associate rates are getting.
I think we are all seeing that hours are kind of flat, maybe down, for legal work across many firms, but the rates are going up. Are we headed to some kind of structural breaking of the system? How do you maintain both of those at the same time?
Kristina Satkunas (17:01)
Thank you.
Next year, next year, Greg.
(18:25)
Yeah, I mean, those associate rates, as high as they are, are definitely interwoven with what you are talking about. So yeah, the model is not going to work if you do not have the hours to support it, right? The law firm model as it is, without being able to bill all the hours historically, something has to give there. And I think the model is breaking. I kind of hope the model is breaking. Let’s shake things up a little bit. But I think people are going to hold onto it kicking and screaming for quite a while. And they will probably start by hiring fewer associates. I think I have heard some pockets of that starting to happen.
But the point that you raise about the $2,000-an-hour associate, that is not the associate AI is likely to replace.
Greg Lambert (19:18)
Mm.
Kristina Satkunas (19:18)
In fact, the data that I look at, so I look at the median partner and what they are billing and how much their rate went up, but the fact is the data shows, and has shown this for the past couple of years, that those partners and associates already at the higher end, so that $2,000-an-hour associate, are raising their rates more like 7 percent compared to the 5 percent average.
So those who are already the more senior people, who should be the more experienced people, are raising their rates more. And I will hypothesize that there is some recognition there from law firms that those people and their expertise can still be billed, right? So let’s try to monetize that as much as possible, some revenue protection, by increasing their rates more, knowing that the more junior people are the ones that we might not be able to bill as much, if at all. So yeah, it is actually not until recently that I started paying attention to that, and I think it is tied up in what we are talking about here with AI starting to sneak in.
Greg Lambert (20:38)
So the gap will continue to grow and the rich get richer.
Kristina Satkunas (20:44)
I think so. And that is what the data has been showing us for the past couple of years. And I think, again, that is in defense of the model, right? That is people saying, the only way this model is going to work if the hours are going down is the rates have to go up. But I am not going to be able to bill for some of these people, so I have got to raise the rates of the people that I am still going to be able to bill. So yeah, it feels that way.
Marlene Gebauer (20:47)
Great.
All right, Kris, I want to get a little provocative here. We have been hearing about alternative fee arrangements for years, but your data shows they have been stuck at around 8 to 10 percent of matters for a while. And now that AI is starting to bring those hours down, the efficiency argument for flat fees is changing. So the question is, have AFAs missed their window of opportunity? If the hours are already shrinking because of technology, does the argument for flat fees disappear?
Kristina Satkunas (21:44)
The efficiency argument is likely disappearing, yes. And if that is the argument for AFAs, then it does pose a problem for the model for sure. I do not know. I actually think the window, and we have talked about this before, I am so sad that AFAs have not taken off because there are so many wonderful reasons that they should have taken off. But intellectually, people were not ready to embrace them.
But I think that window may finally be opening because people are going to be forced to take it because, again, of those two little letters that are going to change things. If hours are shrinking, law firms have to repackage their services, I think, in terms of value received instead of the hours that had to get churned to do that work. And so that is your point about efficiency. They cannot package it that way.
An astute general counsel is not going to pay a flat fee that is approximately what the hours used to add up to on the shadow bill that they used to ask for. We see a lot of that, and it makes me a little bit crazy that general counsel ask for shadow bills. They have a flat fee, but then they want to see how much hourly work was done as well.
So they are not going to pay that larger flat fee for what the work used to cost. So I think that the billing, the AFA model that will start moving, and hopefully we will start seeing more, is billing that is tied more to outcomes, to value, somehow saying what is the value of this matter as opposed to what did it take to get to it. So yeah, I am going out on a limb and saying that window is opening finally.
Marlene Gebauer (23:39)
We will be asking next year. Yeah. Well, I think about it, the value of the work has not changed. The time it takes to do it has changed, but the ultimate value of it has not changed. So how do we price that?
Kristina Satkunas (23:40)
I know. I will remember.
(23:53)
So then what is the other value, right? So how else can law firms add value on top of that? How can they extrapolate what they have done on that matter and help alert their customers to things they should be looking out for down the road, right? So other value-adds that I think have to start coming from that relationship for a general counsel to believe that there really is extra value.
I am not saying that is easy, but I think that is where we are going to have to start moving.
Marlene Gebauer (24:27)
I think AI opens the ability to do that. It just opens that time window to do that.
Kristina Satkunas (24:33)
Yeah.
Greg Lambert (24:35)
Last year, Kris, you introduced a new metric into the report, and that is market share by new matter spend. So instead of looking at the total annual spend, which may include some of the old matters that get brought over, the report analyzed new matters opened each year to determine what the future market share was.
Last year, in that first year of reports, you determined that large firms are gaining, and not losing, the share of the new work, that there is actually more work going to the more elite firms, the bigger firms. And then during the webinar, I thought I heard you say that this year more of the day-to-day might be going to smaller regional firms. One, did I hear that right? And two, what has changed?
Kristina Satkunas (25:32)
So you kind of heard that right, but you did not hear it from me. And that is where I think looking at real data like we have in CounselLink Benchmarking differs from survey data. In the session that we did, it was both a combination of the benchmark data and survey data. The two are definitely complementary, and it was interesting to see how they lined up. But in my experience, and for the most part, survey data tends to give people the opportunity to paint a rosier picture or a more hopeful picture.
So the survey data that our friends at Harbor presented said that two-thirds of respondents had completed or were working on an initiative to strategically shift work to smaller firms. So there is a lot of wiggle room within that, right? And that is good, right? Well, that or they are working on it.
Greg Lambert (25:38)
Ha ha!
(26:42)
Wishful thinking maybe. Yeah, we are working on it. It is like our AI ROI. We are working on it.
Marlene Gebauer (26:45)
It is like we are looking at it. We are thinking about it.
Kristina Satkunas (26:52)
We are working, yes.
But the data does not show it, right? So yes, I still looked. I think last year was the first year we looked at that new metric, and I looked at it again. But for just new matters, new matters opened in 2025, same thing, large law still gaining share of that new work. I always feel a little bit like a Debbie Downer after people report survey data. I am like, well, data does not support what you are saying. But it does not mean it is not coming. So if they are evaluating that and starting to move work down, it will take some time to see that.
So I am still hopeful that GCs will realize how much of an opportunity there is there, but we are just not seeing it yet.
Greg Lambert (27:47)
Well, it does not matter what the data says, it is how I feel. That is what is important.
Kristina Satkunas (27:51)
That’s right. I will go along with that, of course.
Greg Lambert (27:53)
Kris, before we get to the crystal ball, I know you spend most of your time immersed in the CounselLink Insight benchmarking databases, but we have been asking our guests what they are reading or listening to or following outside of their own reports to kind of keep them cognizant of what is going on in the legal industry and business of law.
Kristina Satkunas (28:29)
Yeah, so I am sorry to say I do not have a go-to, if you are hoping that I would come up with a particular blog that I read or a particular site I am paying attention to. Obviously, I have a feed that has an awful lot coming into it, so I am looking at a lot of things. But probably like you, I am always looking for new webinars or events like the one I ran into you at a couple weeks ago, looking for something that is a fresh take or something new.
Maybe because I spend so much time looking at data, I think I actually get more value from using my other time talking to people, hearing what they are really doing, and asking them to validate some of the things that I am seeing in the data. So it is always good for me to talk to whether it be our own customers or people in the industry, to dig into things a little bit more. And also, I am always looking for ideas of whether there are things they would like me to research, right? We do have this great database of so many invoices and matters running through it that if other topics come up, I am always interested in hearing those for that reason.
So no one specific thing, but yeah, I spend a lot of time looking at different articles and listening to what people are talking about.
Marlene Gebauer (29:52)
Okay, Kris, it is time for the crystal ball question. I know we did this last year, so we will do it again this year. We looked back at your prediction from last year, and we will talk about that and then hear your predictions for this year.
In 2025, what you were saying, and I am going to paraphrase, is that firms are going to increase their rates even more than what we had been seeing, that things had leveled out around 5 percent for the past few years and that you could see it going up to 6 or 7 percent. And you were hoping there would be pushback on those rates. First of all, how correct were you as far as this year’s data? I was going to say, I think she hit it in terms of this year’s data. And then, looking forward, as AI becomes integrated into these workflows, are we going to see a real shift to some form of value-based pricing?
Greg Lambert (30:31)
I think she was pretty good.
Kristina Satkunas (30:50)
Yeah, so I mean, I hate that I was right, right? It is like business as usual. The trend keeps going along. It does not take much of a crystal ball to see that. But I will go out on a limb. I am hopeful that we have finally entered into a real age of disruption, so to speak, and that we will start seeing some traction in 2026, maybe 2027, probably even more, of that value-based billing starting to show up in some pockets that we have not seen it before, not just flat fees, but real other types of billing like we were talking about.
I still think, though, that for rates, based on what we were talking about before, I think they are probably going to go up even more than that 5, 6, 7 percent, as many firms try to optimize what is left of the billable hour model, right? Let’s get as much as we can out of the people that we are able to bill. So I would not be surprised if, at least at the high end, we start seeing those more senior lawyers increase their rates even more than they have in the past.
Marlene Gebauer (32:06)
That is just really depressing. And it seems short-sighted. Now would seem to be the time to get ahead of this, like, look, it is coming. Let’s get ahead of this trend and be ready.
Kristina Satkunas (32:09)
Okay.
But is that what is going to separate some firms from the others, right? Those that are holding on and trying to hold onto that model versus those that are trying to face what is coming and change their model. I think there will be a split between those. I do not know, maybe the data will help me parse firms that way, right? Those that are forward-thinking versus those desperately clinging.
Greg Lambert (32:45)
Well, see, yeah, there was a little sliver of hope there in that.
Marlene Gebauer (32:46)
Whole new report, whole new report. Great.
Kristina Satkunas (32:49)
Yeah.
Yeah, that is right. I know. I am not a Debbie Downer, really.
Greg Lambert (32:56)
Kris, the Director of Strategic Consulting at CounselLink, thank you again for coming back this year and sharing all these insights. It is always a pleasure to jump into the data and talk real numbers with you.
Kristina Satkunas (33:13)
Thanks for having me again. I enjoyed it very much.
Marlene Gebauer (33:17)
Yeah, thanks, Kris. And thanks to all of you, our listeners, for listening to The Geek in Review. If you enjoyed this dive into data, please share this with a colleague.
Greg Lambert (33:26)
And Kris, where is the best place for listeners to go to find the latest Trends Report and maybe connect with you as well?
Kristina Satkunas (33:34)
They can connect with me probably on LinkedIn. That would be the best way. And they could ask me for a copy of the report that way, or they could go out to the CounselLink.com website and find a link there as well.
Marlene Gebauer (33:47)
And as always, the music you hear is from Jerry David DeCicca. Thank you, Jerry. And bye, everybody.
If you want, I can also turn this into a speaker-labeled, publication-ready transcript with cleaner paragraph breaks and removed filler while still preserving the substance.