law firms

Subscribe to law firms

This week we catch up with ⁠Jeff Pfeifer⁠ and ⁠Serena Wellen⁠ from LexisNexis to discuss the rapid development of AI tools for the legal industry over the past year. Pfeifer and Wellen give us an insider’s view of what it took to bring their ⁠Lexis+ AI⁠ tool to the market and the balance between speed to market and getting solid customer guidance on what they need in a legal-focused Generative AI tool. Between the initial version released to a select group of customers and the current version, the product grew from an open-ended chat interface into more of a guided resource that helps users on creating and following up on prompts. As with most AI tools created in the past year, there is still more potential as more and more customers use it and give critical feedback along the way.

In addition to Lexis+ AI, LexisNexis has now launched two additional AI products – ⁠Lexis Snapshot⁠ and ⁠Lexis Create⁠. Lexis Snapshot summarizes legal complaints to help firms monitor litigation. Lexis Create brings AI capabilities directly into Microsoft Word to assist with drafting and research while lawyers are working on documents. The goal is to embed insights where lawyers are actually doing their work rather than separate AI tools.

While the focus of the initial Generative AI tools from LexisNexis were focused on the US market, Serena Wellen and her team are busy expanding that to more of an international reach. This requires adapting the models, content, and interface to different languages and legal systems. This is complex undertaking, but Wellen discusses how LexisNexis has content and editors around the world to help customize the tools. Surprisingly, desired use cases are fairly consistent globally – both simple legal tasks as well as more advanced legal research and drafting.

Greg Lambert brings up a recent LinkedIn discussion that he had with Microsoft’s Jason Barnwell, where Barnwell told him that today’s version of Generative AI tools are “the worst these things will ever be.” In response, Pfeifer says that LexisNexis is focused on continuously improving answer quality to build trust and prove the value of AI to skeptical lawyers. LexisNexis is leveraging relationships with companies like Microsoft to reinforce the stability and progress being made.

Wellen and Pfeifer look into the future and predicted that AI assistants will become highly personalized to individual lawyers. AI agents will also proliferate across platforms to help automate tasks and workflows. Law firms will likely accelerate their adoption of AI tools based on rising expectations and demands from corporate legal departments to work more efficiently.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠ | ⁠YouTube⁠

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Contact Us: 

Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠
Threads: @glambertpod or @gebauerm66
Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠Transcript

Continue Reading Pfeifer and Wellen Give an Inside Look at LexisNexis’ AI Sprint (TGIR Ep. 230)

This week, we cover the highlights of the recent Knowledge Management and Innovation for Legal Conference with our guests, Patrick DiDomenico, founder of Inspire KM Consulting and the organizer of the conference; Tanisha Little, Director of Knowledge Management at Simpson Thatcher; and Sara Miro, Director of Knowledge at Sullivan Cromwell. In a time of Generative AI Hype, the basic ideas behind Knowledge Management have never been more relevant. As much as we believe in the future of a technology that can build upon our current knowledge, how we structure and manage that knowledge will determine just how far we can go. Knowledge management has never been more important than it is today.

The episode begins with an exploration of the organizational complexities behind the inaugural conference. Patrick DiDomenico shares his experiences in orchestrating the event, noting the extensive, months-long commitment it entailed, yet expressing satisfaction with the innovative elements introduced, such as breakout sessions.

We then shift focus to the specific sessions led by our guests. Tanisha Little and Jennifer Mendez conducted a “KM 101” session, effectively orienting newcomers to the field. Additionally, an engaging KM Attorney Roundtable, facilitated by Sara Miro and Patrick Dundas, explored issues such as change management and the implications of generative AI.

Our discussion also covers the most impactful sessions from the conference. Key highlights include Andrea Alliston’s keynote on leadership amidst disruption, Jeff Rovner’s presentation on succession planning, and Mark Smolik’s perspective on aligning law firms with client needs. The consensus underscores the conference’s comprehensive value for professionals across all levels of KM expertise.

A significant aspect of the conference was the notable influx of newcomers to the KM field. Emphasizing the importance of foundational knowledge, Patrick DiDomenico notes that such conferences often attract a substantial proportion of first-time attendees. The provision of introductory content is pivotal for equipping these professionals for more advanced discussions in future gatherings.

For our Crystal Ball Question, there is a unanimous agreement on the transformative potential of generative AI, foreseeing an increase in KM specialization, refined use cases, and enhanced emphasis on data curation. Nevertheless, mastering foundational KM practices, such as change management, is deemed essential for fully capitalizing on these technological advancements. The episode concludes with an optimistic outlook on the continuous growth and evolution in the field of KM.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠Apple Podcasts⁠ |  ⁠Spotify⁠ | YouTube

⁠⁠⁠⁠Contact Us: 

Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠
Threads: @glambertpod or @gebauerm66
Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠

Transcript

Continue Reading The Future of KM is Bright: DiDomenico, Miro, and Little Review the KM&I for Legal Conference (TGIR Ep. 229)

In this episode of The Geek in Review, hosts Greg Lambert and Marlene Gebauer interview three guests from UK law firm Travers Smith about their work on AI: Chief Technology Officer Oliver Bethell, Director of Legal Technology Shawn Curran, and AI Manager Sam Lansley. They discuss Travers Smith’s approach to testing and applying AI tools like generative models.

A key focus is finding ways to safely leverage AI while mitigating risks like copyright issues and hallucination. Travers Smith built an internal chatbot called YCNbot to experiment with generative AI through secure enterprise APIs. They are being cautious on the generative side but see more revolutionary impact from reasoning applications like analyzing documents.

Travers Smith has open sourced tools like YCNbot to spur responsible AI adoption. Collaboration with 273 Ventures helped build in multi-model support. The team is working on reducing dependence on manual prompting and increasing document analysis capabilities. They aim to be model-agnostic to hedge against reliance on a single vendor.

On model safety, Travers Smith emphasizes training data legitimacy, multi-model flexibility, and probing hallucination risks. They co-authored a paper on subtle errors in legal AI. Dedicated roles like prompt engineers are emerging to interface between law and technology. Travers Smith is exploring AI for tasks like contract review but not yet for work product.

When asked about the crystal ball for legal AI, the guests predicted the need for equitable distribution of benefits, growth in reasoning applications vs. generative ones, and movement toward more autonomous agents over manual prompting. Info providers may gain power over intermediaries applying their data.

This wide-ranging discussion provides an inside look at how one forward-thinking firm is advancing legal AI in a prudent and ethical manner. With an open source mindset, Travers Smith is exploring boundaries and sharing solutions to propel the responsible use of emerging technologies in law.

Links:

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠Apple Podcasts⁠ |  ⁠Spotify⁠ | YouTube (NEW!)

Contact Us:

Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠
Threads: @glambertpod or @gebauerm66
Voicemail: 713-487-7821 Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠TranscriptContinue Reading Deploying Cutting-Edge Legal AI: Travers Smith’s Cautious, But Open-source Approach. (TGIR Ep. 216)

In this episode of The Geek in Review, hosts Marlene Gebauer and Greg Lambert interview Laura Leopard, founder and CEO of Leopard Solutions, about succession planning challenges facing law firms. Leopard explains that many firms have partners nearing retirement age but no concrete plans for transitioning clients and leadership. This lack of succession planning threatens law firms’ futures.

Laura mentions that to make matters worse, the path to equity partnership is getting longer, making it harder to retain promising senior associates and counsel. Firms have added non-equity partner roles, keeping equity partner numbers small to inflate profits per partner. Leadership lacks incentives to retire, with no retirement plans or continued compensation. All this will hamper recruiting efforts, as younger generations prioritize work-life balance.

She recommends that in order to retain mid-career attorneys, firms must rethink policies on remote work, billable hours, and flexibility. Virtual firms with better lifestyle offerings are growing competitors. But firms seem unwilling to change. Leopard argues everything should be on the table for analysis by outside consultants. Phased retirements and succession mentoring could also help transition clients and power.

Though Laura Leopard (and even Bruce MacEwan) cannot point to examples of firms that have executed succession planning well, it is possible with courageous leadership. She advises setting retirement age limits, crafting written plans, and easing older partners’ exits. A too-big-to-fail mentality persists despite serious business vulnerabilities if talent is not retained and recruited.

Looking ahead, Leopard predicts the rise of virtual firms will shake up the legal industry as they encroach on Big Law territory with alternative fee arrangements. The pandemic accelerated dissatisfaction with law firm partnership and policies. As generational divides grow, flexible virtual firms will keep gaining ground over more rigid large firms.

This engaging discussion unpacks the complex dynamics around law firm succession planning and existential threats posed by lack of preparation. As partners cling to power, can bold leaders emerge to implement creative solutions and secure these institutions’ longevity? Tune in for an insightful examination of forces reshaping the legal landscape.

Links:

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠Apple Podcasts⁠ |  ⁠Spotify⁠ | YouTube (NEW!)

Contact Us:

Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠
Threads: @glambertpod or @gebauerm66
Voicemail: 713-487-7821 Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠Transcript

Continue Reading Laura Leopard on Law Firms’ Current Succession Planning: Step One – Do Nothing (TGIR Ep. 215)

This is part 3 in a 3 part series.  Part 1 questions Goldman’s Sachs data showing that 44% of of legal tasks could be replaced by Generative AI.  In Part 2, we find some better data and estimate an upper limit of 23.5% of revenue that could be reduced by Generative AI. All of our assertions and assumptions will be discussed in further detail in a free LVN Webinar on August 15th.
The Big Idea:  We apply reductions in hours due to Generative AI to a few matters to determine Generative AI’s potential effect on profitability.
Key Points:
  • We establish a baseline sample matter and compare changes to that sample matter when Generative AI is applied
  • We explore how leverage is affected by Generative AI and how those changes may affect profitability in unexpected ways

Determining Generative AI’s effect on law firm profitability requires a bit more than a “back of the napkin” calculation with rough percentages based on keywords in time entries, as we did when roughly calculating the effect on revenue.

As Toby pointed out at the end of the last post, Generative AI is unlikely to hit all timekeepers equally.

We begin with this assertion.

Generative AI will disproportionately impact non-partner hours.

We are comfortable making this assertion for two reasons:

  1. Generative AI, in its current state, is most likely to replace or shorten the time to complete lower complexity and lesser specialized tasks that should be performed at the associate or paralegal level.
  2. Any time legal work hours are reduced, Partners tend to protect their own hours.

With that in mind, Toby began a profitability analysis, beginning with a baseline sample matter that does not factor in any use of Generative AI. We will use this baseline to compare against our AI adjusted matters.

Baseline M&A Sample Matter Data

Our baseline sample matter is loosely modeled on an M&A transaction and includes 5 timekeepers:

  • an Equity Partner
  • a 17th year service partner
  • 10th, 7th and 3rd year associates
TK Hours Rate Realization Revenue Expense Profit
EP 80 $1,000 88% $70,400 $15,200 $55,200
SP17 100 $895 88% $78,760 $48,500 $30,260
10yr 125 $735 88% $80,850 $48,750 $32,100
7yr 90 $660 88% $52,272 $32,400 $19,872
3yr 55 $595 88% $28,798 $18,150 $10,648

Estimated Annual Profit Per Equity Partner (PPEP) – $1,851 X 1400 hrs = $2,591,400

Leverage – 60% Non-Partner Hours

There are, of course, a number of assumptions in this baseline data that could greatly change from firm to firm, including the billable rates, the realization rate, and the expense for each timekeeper. However, we will keep this baseline data consistent across all of our examples in order to make a fair comparison. With different rates, realization, and expenses you will get different results. We strongly encourage every firm to perform a similar calculation for themselves.

Baseline Matter Analysis

The total hours billed are 450. The total revenue is $311k and the total profit in dollars is $163k.

Our model then translates the profit on this one matter into an estimated PPEP number for the firm. This is so we can determine profit margin impact separate from profit dollars.

In this baseline model, the PPEP number is ~$2.6m; meaning that if all work at this firm were staffed and billed like this one matter, the firm average PPEP would be about $2.6m.

Leverage

There’s an old adage in economic circles: “Workers Work. Owners Benefit.”
Continue Reading AI-Pocalypse: The Shocking Impact on Law Firm Profitability

by 3 Geeks (Ryan McClead, Greg Lambert, and Toby Brown)

This is part 2 in a 3 part series. The first part is here. Part 3 is here.

The Big Idea: We found a much better dataset, though still small, from which to extrapolate actual effects of Generative AI on the legal industry.

Key takeaways:

  • We got anonymized and summarized data for 10 corporate legal departments from LexisNexis CounselLink
  • The data showed that almost 40% of time entries, representing 47% of billings, could potentially use Generative AI.
  • We estimate that a realistic initial upper limit for Generative AI would be to reduce that work by half, or 20% of time entries and 23.5% of revenue

In the previous post, Ryan got tired of hearing the Goldman Sachs “44% of Legal is going away” stat being quoted uncritically and decided to actually look into the underlying data used in their report. Ryan’s exploration of the data is an interesting story in and of itself, but the bottom line is that the data is fuzzy at best, the sample size is laughable, and the breathlessly unquestioning reporting on Goldman’s study has been remarkably sloppy.

After writing up his findings, Ryan shared that post with Greg and Toby, and the question quickly arose, “can we find some actual, useful data to better understand the effect that Generative AI might actually have on law firms?” Gregreached out to Kris Satkunas from LexisNexis CounselLink, a recent interviewee on the Geek in Review, to see if CounselLink could share some anonymized benchmark data for us to analyze.

LexisNexis CounselLink Data

As a reminder the Goldman data was using survey questions about how important certain “work tasks” were for their jobs. Those tasks included things like “Getting Information”, “Identifying Objects, Actions, and Events”, and “Scheduling Work and Activities”. These are quite vague and wide open to interpretation.

In an attempt to find more useful data for our purposes, we asked Kris for the percentages of all time entries that included the keywords “Draft” or “Review” in the description. Our assumption is that those two terms will capture a large percentage of actual time entries in which lawyers are likely to use Generative AI. We fully recognize that this simple heuristic will not produce a clean data set from which to extrapolate definitive results, but as a first pass at some real data, we believe this gives us a nice estimate of tasks that could potentially be ripe for automation with Generative AI.
Continue Reading Generative AI Could Reduce Law Firm Revenue by 23.5%

This is the first in a 3-part blog post, it first appeared on The Sente Playbook.  The other 2 posts are co-authored by Toby Brown and Greg Lambert and will follow later this week. Apologies for the length of this post, but I was channeling my inner Casey Flaherty.
The Big Idea:  The data that Goldman used is insufficient to make the claims about Generative AI’s effect on legal that their report did.
Key Take-Aways:
  • Reporting about this report is sloppy
  • Reporting within this report is sloppy
  • The underlying data doesn’t tell us much meaningful
  • 3 Geeks attempts to find meaningful data
On March 26th, 2023 Goldman Sachs sent shockwaves through the legal industry by publishing a report claiming that 44% of “something” in the Legal Industry was going to be replaced by Generative AI.  I didn’t question that stat at the time, because it sounded about right to me.  I suspect that was true for most people who know the legal industry.  As I’ve heard this stat repeated by multiple AI purveyors actively scaring lawyers into buying their products or services, I eventually started to question its validity.
I started by looking into the press coverage of that 44% number and was immediately confused.  (All emphasis below added by me.)

Law.com  – March 29, 2023
Generative AI Could Automate Almost Half of All Legal Tasks, Goldman Sachs Estimates
“Goldman Sachs estimated that generative AI could automate 44% of legal tasks in the U.S. “

Observer – March 30, 2023
Two-Thirds of Jobs Are at Risk: Goldman Sachs A.I. Study
“The investment bank’s economists estimate that 46% of administrative positions, 44% of legal positions, and 37% of engineering jobs could be replaced by artificial intelligence.

NY Times – April 10, 2023
A.I. Is Coming for Lawyers, Again
“Another research report, by economists at Goldman Sachs, estimated that 44 percent of legal work could be automated.”

Okay, so which is it?  Generative AI is going to replace 44% of legal tasks, positions, or work?
Because those are 3 very different things; each of which would have extremely different impacts on the industry if they came to pass.  Lest you think I cherry-picked three outlying articles, go ahead and Google “AI Replace 44% Legal Goldman Sachs” and see what you get.  Those 3 articles are in my top 5 results.
My top result as of this writing is a news article from IBL News, writing last Tuesday that Goldman says,  “AI could automate 46% of tasks in administrative jobs, 44% of legal jobs, and 37% of architecture and engineering professions.”
We should probably just go back to what the Goldman Sachs report actually said and then we can chalk this up to lazy tech journalism.  Well, not so fast.  Because while the Goldman researchers clearly say “current work tasks” (see below) even that begins to fall apart once you dig into the underlying data.

What Goldman Sachs actually said in the report

Continue Reading 44% of Investment Bankers Think They Can Make Lots of Money Off of Attorney Insecurity (AI)

This week on The Geek in Review, Marlene Gebauer and Greg Lambert talk with ⁠Curt Meltzer⁠, principal of ⁠Meltzer Consulting, LLC⁠. Meltzer has over 40 years of experience in the legal and legal tech industry. He discusses his interest in pro bono and community outreach programs in law firms and legal tech companies. He notes that while 95% of AmLaw 200 law firms highlight pro bono work on their websites, many legal tech companies do not prioritize these efforts.

Meltzer emphasizes that pro bono and community work is good for business. It enhances company culture, helps with recruiting and retaining top talent, and strengthens customer relationships. He argues that legal tech companies should consider emulating their law firm clients’ community programs. This could include donating software or services, allowing employees paid time off for volunteer work, or collaborating directly with organizations that law firm clients support.

Meltzer highlights LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters as leaders in the legal tech industry for their work promoting access to justice and the rule of law around the world. However, he notes that companies of any size can contribute, whether through recognizing employees who volunteer or donating resources. He published a list of 41 legal tech companies that do highlight community outreach on their websites to raise awareness, though he found 39 companies with no mention of such efforts.

Meltzer sees both opportunities and challenges ahead. Private equity investment in legal tech companies may prioritize short-term profits over community programs. However, companies that do not respond to customer interest in their pro bono and corporate social responsibility initiatives risk losing business to competitors. Overall, Meltzer aims to foster conversations about strengthening the relationship between the legal tech community and the broader community. Corporations that embrace ESG programs and give back to the communities they serve will thrive.

Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠Apple Podcasts⁠ |  ⁠Spotify

⁠Links:⁠

⁠

Contact Us:

Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠
Voicemail: 713-487-7821
Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠⁠Transcript⁠

⁠
Continue Reading Curt Meltzer on Why Legal Tech Companies Should Give Back: The Business Case for Pro Bono, A2J, and Community Outreach (TGIR Ep. 207)

This week we bring in Christian Lang, the CEO and founder of LEGA, a company that provides a secure platform for law firms and legal departments to safely implement and govern the use of large language models (LLMs) like Open AI’s GPT-4, Google’s Bard, and Anthropic’s Claude. Christian talks with us about why he started LEGA, the value LEGA provides to law firms and legal departments, the challenges around security, confidentiality, and other issues as LLMs become more widely used, and how LEGA helps solve those problems.

Christian started LEGA after gaining experience working with law firms through his previous company, Reynen Court. He saw an opportunity to give law firms a way to quickly implement and test LLMs while maintaining control and governance over data and compliance. LEGA provides a sandbox environment for law firms to explore different LLMs and AI tools to find use cases. The platform handles user management, policy enforcement, and auditing to give firms visibility into how the technologies are being used.

Christian believes law firms want to use technologies like LLMs but struggle with how to do so securely and in a compliant way. LEGA allows them to get started right away without a huge investment in time or money. The platform is also flexible enough to work with any model a firm wants to use. As law firms get comfortable, LEGA will allow them to scale successful use cases across the organization.

On the challenges law firms face, Christian points to Shadow IT as people will find ways to use the technologies with or without the firm’s permission. Firms need to provide good options to users or risk losing control and oversight. He also discusses the difficulty in training new lawyers as LLMs make some tasks too easy, the coming market efficiencies in legal services, and the strategic curation of knowledge that will still require human judgment.

Some potential use cases for law firms include live chatbots, document summarization, contract review, legal research, and market intelligence gathering. As models allow for more tailored data inputs, the use cases will expand further. Overall, Christian is excited for how LLMs and AI can transform the legal industry but emphasizes that strong governance and oversight are key to implementing them successfully.

Listen on mobile platforms:  Apple Podcasts |  Spotify
Contact Us:

Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠⁠
Voicemail: 713-487-7821
Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠

⁠⁠Transcript⁠

Continue Reading Christian Lang on Governing the Rise of LLMs: How LEGA Provides a Safe Space for Law Firms to Use AI (TGIR Ep. 206)

In this 200th episode of The Geek in Review, talk with ⁠Toby Brown⁠, CEO and founder of ⁠DV8 Legal Strategies⁠, and ⁠Nita Sanger⁠, Director of Digital Advisory Services at ⁠Cherry Bekaert⁠. There are three rules for growth and success when it comes to large law firms. Strategy, strategy, and strategy.

Brown emphasizes the need for law firms to develop strategies that prioritize clients and build meaningful relationships. He argues that “firms should start thinking of clients as customers and using customer experience as a way to differentiate themselves.” Sanger shares this view, adding that law firms should “focus on value creation, continuous improvement, and customer experience” as they grow and evolve.

Both Brown and Sanger discuss how law firms can reframe their view of growth, moving away from a talent management perspective and toward a mergers and acquisitions approach. Brown highlights his experience at a prior law firm, where he transformed the lateral partner program into a strategic acquisition initiative. He explains, “this is straight up M&A. So I renamed the program the lateral partner acquisition and integration program. And we treated it much like Apple or Google or any of them would treat their acquisitions.”

Sanger and Brown also touch on the importance of integrating newly acquired practices or firms into the existing business. Sanger emphasizes the need for planning and a program management office to ensure a smooth transition, while Brown shares his success with where hist firm had one of the highest lateral retention rates in the market due to the strategic approach and focus on integration.

Looking into the future, Sanger envisions law firms as technology-enabled platforms, providing a wider range of services, while Brown expresses concerns about the reluctance of law departments and law firms to prioritize standardized business processes over the individual preferences of frontline lawyers. Despite their differing perspectives on the future, both agree that a focus on strategy, client experience, and growth through mergers and acquisitions will be crucial for the success of law firms moving forward.

Listen on mobile platforms:  Apple Podcasts LogoApple Podcasts |  Spotify LogoSpotify
Contact Us:

Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠
Voicemail: 713-487-7821
Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com
Music: ⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠

⁠Transcript

Continue Reading Rethinking Law Firm Strategy: The Road to Growth and Success with Toby Brown and Nita Sanger (TGIR Ep. 200)