close

Law \ Legal

Law \ Legal

Is It Bad When Opposing Counsel’s Writes Judge, ‘Here We Are Again’? Asking For Elon Musk.


Elon Musk

(Photo by Diego Donamaria/Getty Images for SXSW)

Elon Musk tried to buy Twitter. More accurately, “Elon Musk tried rile up his troll fanbase with a goof about buying Twitter.” But he took it too far, signing papers to overpay for the company while ordering his attorneys to waive due diligence protections because lawyers are smart and cautious and Elon Musk is not those things.

Now Twitter is taking him to court because contractual obligations are real things. Musk’s case wasn’t particular good from the start — except these guys making up different facts and laws to generate clickbait for Musk fanboys — but he might be making it a lot harder on himself with some dangerous discovery shenanigans.

In a recent letter, available here, Twitter’s counsel wrote the judge detailing a number of alleged discovery abuses. That it begins with “here we are again” is not encouraging for Musk’s fans.

Twitter is seeking Musk’s correspondence related to the deal. Musk’s production includes critical gaps at key junctures. Twitter asked if Musk used “self-deleting” platforms like Signal to guarantee that his messages would disappear so they could not be produced. Musk’s counsel said in April that he didn’t “ordinarily” use Signal. As gaps became more glaring, Twitter asked Musk’s team in September to re-confirm that this really wasn’t a gap caused by an effort to keep all discussions about breaching the contract on self-deleting message platforms. Musk’s lawyers responded, “neither Elon Musk nor Jared Birchall conducted business related to the Merger using Signal messages.”

You can imagine where this goes from here…

Third-party productions revealed that co-investor Marc Andreessen’s involvement in the deal arose through the app: “If you are considering equity partners, my growth fund is in for $250M with no additional work required.” That message was deleted by preset design (as indicated by the red-boxed timers), and is only available to Twitter because Andreessen’s fund took steps to preserve it.

The Stringer Bell Rule only works if you don’t take notes at all. You can’t leave a paper trail and just assume the other side will also delete their copy.

It’s one thing to have conversations lost in the ether. It’s another to have those conversations when you know you’re heading to litigation. And it’s a way, way worse thing to have those conversations, lose them, and try to pretend they never existed.

“Maybe Musk didn’t think litigation was in the offing during the relevant period?” you ask. Well…

  • During the relevant time period, Musk exchanged 19 text messages with Alex Spiro ( ), one of his closest advisors. Exs. 9- 11. None of those messages were produced and only three were logged.

Alex Spiro is not a deal lawyer. Musk was talking to his trial counsel during the relevant period. Pinpointing the moment litigation became “reasonably anticipated” can get fuzzy, but it’s safe to say it happens before “calling your litigators.”

There are other exchanges that Twitter now has that the letter describes as “neither produced nor logged,” which has a certain Airplane quality here of being offered steak and fish and saying, “yes, I had the lasagna.” You can do one or the other but doing nothing is traditionally frowned upon.

It’s almost as if people like Musk and Trump were put on this Earth to get their lawyers in trouble. There may not be a better explanation for these guys.

Musk’s strategy, at this point, seems to be to create enough smoke around Twitter’s bot representations — something Musk openly talked about not trusting before the deal and then waived any right to investigate — will spawn a government investigation that he could cite as an independent material adverse event.

He might pull it off, but getting on the judge’s bad side during discovery isn’t going to help.

Earlier: Twitter Complaint Demonstrates That Every Lawyer, Everywhere, Always Is Smarter Than Elon Musk
Elon Musk Will Beat Twitter! WSJ Says It’s Obvious… Assuming You Change Every Single Fact And Law.


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.







Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

The Value Of Highly Perfumed In-House Lawyers


lawyer-3268430_1280My corporation’s legal department has had several highly perfumed lawyers over the past decade: former U.S. Supreme Court clerks, former federal appellate court clerks, and the like.

These are the kind of folks that even an AmLaw 50 firm loves to brag about — if the AmLaw 50 firm is lucky enough to have these people around. Big firms love to offer “state of the Supreme Court” CLE programs on which the panelists are exclusively former Supreme Court clerks. It adds panache.

Someone in my company’s finance department recently said something entirely reasonable about this situation — entirely reasonable and completely wrong: “I bet we get a big discount on litigation when the other side finds out the credentials (and reputation) of who we have in-house.”

Isn’t that funny? It’s perfectly plausible and, to my eye, simply not true.

In the 25 years that I worked as outside counsel, I rarely knew the name of the inside counsel monitoring a case for my opponent. (I’m, of course, thinking of corporations that have outside counsel handle litigation for them. I’d care about the identity of in-house counsel if the in-house lawyer was actually taking depositions and handling a trial.) I wouldn’t have bothered Googling the in-house lawyer’s credentials even if I heard the name. (I’ll grant that a fair amount of my practice was the defense of either product liability mass torts or securities class actions, and there is no in-house counsel — some would say no relevant client at all — on the plaintiff’s side of those cases. But I also handled routine corporate litigation, and I just didn’t care who was overseeing the case for the other side.)

Outside counsel cares deeply about who the opposing outside lawyer is: Is the person any good? Should I be anticipating arguments that the other side might make, or is opposing counsel really bad, so I can assume he or she will miss important arguments? (If so, who’s the judge? Might the judge catch an argument that I didn’t raise and opposing counsel missed? If so, must I raise the issue, even though opposing counsel is a moron?) Is the person a jerk, so every deposition will be an ordeal? Has opposing counsel never tried a case, so his or her knees will begin to buckle as we approach trial, or has opposing counsel tried many cases successfully, in which case perhaps my knees should begin to buckle?

These things matter to you as outside counsel, and they affect how you handle, or value, a case.

But the credentials of opposing in-house counsel? I never gave it a thought (and I still don’t).

That doesn’t mean in-house counsel can’t affect the value of a case. If the in-house lawyer identifies an important argument that outside counsel missed, that argument can certainly affect the value of a case. And the in-house lawyer’s willingness to take a case to trial may make a difference. But the in-house lawyer’s credentials (and reputation)?

Irrelevant.

Isn’t that odd?


Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].



Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

Millionaire Convicted In Murder Of Attorney


tablet-attorney-pickert

Tom Pickert

In 2017, Kansas City, Missouri personal injury lawyer Tom Pickert was shot and killed in front of his home, after walking his sons home from school.

Before his murder, Pickert won a $5.75 million dollar judgment against David Jungerman, a business owner who shot a homeless man on his property. Jungerman claimed the man was stealing copper from a property he owns. In connection with that judgment, the day before Pickert’s murder, Jungerman was informed his property was being seized to pay the judgment.

Last week, Jungerman was found guilty in the murder of Pickert.

In closing arguments, prosecutors described Jungerman as “twisted,” and as “someone with ice water in their veins.” Also playing a role in the case was a recording authorities recovered of Jungerman seemingly bragging about the murder of Pickert:

Key to prosecutors’ closing argument was the audio recording of Jungerman allegedly admitting that he killed Pickert. [Prosecutor Tim Dollar] said Jungerman joked with Leo Wynne about the shooting. In the recording, Jungerman told Wynne: “When I think about it, I grin. That (expletive) has caused me a lot of problems Leo.”

Dollar then showed jurors a photo from the crime scene that showed Pickert sprawled on the sidewalk in front of his home, dead from a gunshot wound to the head. “What kind of monster would smile or laugh about that?” Dollar said.

“That is what he was talking about. That was in his mind.”

Jungerman is set to be sentenced November 18th. Under state law, the minimum penalty for first degree murder is life in prison without parole. Daniel Ross, Jungerman’s attorney, said they’re planning an appeal.


Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).





Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

Former CNBC Talking Head Suddenly Not Interest In Showing His Face



Hercules Investments chief investment officer James McDonald used to be a familiar face on CNBC, pontificating about market matters as an expert thereon. Of course, like most of the people brought on by CNBC to explain how the market will react to certain things (like talking heads on any subject on any 24-hour news channel), being generally right about those things was not a booking requirement. Which was great for McDonald, because he apparently really muffed the market response to a Joe Biden victory over Donald Trump two years ago: He assumed that the ousting of an incompetent demagogue would tank things.



Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

Morning Docket: 09.26.22 – Above the LawAbove the Law


Title Law school on a book and a gavel.

(Image via Getty)

* Do you attend the T.C. Williams School of Law? Not anymore! [WRIC]

* Tired of pretending to know what gerrymandering or redistricting is? Here’s a legal primer. [Cornell Sun]

* Pursuant to a California law, the word “Squaw” — which contextually can be a slur — won’t be in place names anymore. Squad! [LA Times]

* Car start yodeling at you when you start the engine? This law may prevent that happening with as much frequency. [Car And Driver]

* GM and Hyundai accused of having crappy airbag inflators. Better to find that out like this instead of first hand experience on the freeway. [Law.com]


Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at [email protected] and by tweet at @WritesForRent.





Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

Justice Breyer Still Doesn’t Understand What The Supreme Court Does These Days


Justices Breyer And Scalia Testify At House Hearing

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Most of the buzz around retired Justice Stephen Breyer’s exclusive CNN interview revolves around his comment warning former colleagues that some recent opinions will “bite you in the back.” Ever the cautious and responsible jurist, Breyer doesn’t say turning the Supreme Court over to naked ideologues will do the biting but “writing too rigidly.”

If this was meant as a euphemism, it falls short.

But while this back-biting pull quote has folks talking, the rest of the interview reveals that Justice Breyer still doesn’t seem to get how the Supreme Court works these days. Breyer placed this blissful ignorance on full display during the interview:

“What you do is what I learned from (Justice) Arthur Goldberg when I was his law clerk, and I’ve tried to live up to it. And I learned it as well from Sen. (Ted) Kennedy, when I worked for him,” Breyer said. “You do your best, you know, and maybe people will agree. And maybe they don’t. And maybe you’ll win. And maybe you’ll lose. And then what you do is you think about it for a while.”

“Go on to the next thing, so that you can do a decent job on the next thing,” he added. “And just keep going.”

Just do your best and maybe you win or maybe you lose? That’s the message behind his work on the Court? The body charged with safeguarding the rule of law?

Here, let’s put that content in a more appropriate setting:

Screen Shot 2022-09-23 at 11.04.51 AM

Because it is absolutely not a message befitting a Supreme Court justice holding the line against injustice.

And this defines the tragedy of Stephen Breyer. Because in reality, he was exactly what a Supreme Court justice should be, stuck in an era where that’s just not what the Supreme Court’s all about.

“And you say did I like this Dobbs decision? Of course I didn’t. Of course I didn’t,” the retired justice said, his voice rising.

“Was I happy about it? Not for an instant. Did I do everything I could to persuade people? Of course, of course. But there we are and now we go on. We try to work together.”

Good heavens, this guy would bring a gift basket to a gun fight.

How much “working together” went down this Term? Breyer served with Republicans like O’Connor and Souter who approached the job willing to negotiate in good faith and, occasionally, temper their opinions to forge half-measure compromises. Justices like Scalia or Thomas demanding maximalist stances on everything and railing against long-settled precedent that they didn’t like must have felt like outliers to Breyer.

But they were canaries and the mine is now teeming with toxic fumes.

“Working together” is a one-way street. Justice Kagan has sided with conservatives for years to build a record of respect for precedent even when it cuts against her core values just to watch the conservatives jettison decades of precedent on a whim once the tables turned. All it earned her was the right to call her colleagues hypocrites. Combined with around 2 bucks that will get her a cup of coffee.

The collegiality of the Supreme Court is all form and no substance at this point. They’re quick to brag about small talk over lunch, but there hasn’t been a substantive constitutional decision that bears the markings of prudent compromise for years. More than half the justices came to the Court determined to rewrite the nation tossing text, precedent, and even relevant U.S. history aside to elevate medieval pamphleteers. Breyer may wish for a Supreme Court dominated by his brand of conscientious judicial reasoning, but if wishes were horses, everyone would ride… to a ballot box because we’d still have a Voting Rights Act to speak of.

Bringing us to the ever annoying “leak” discourse:

Breyer also condemned the leak earlier this year of the draft opinion of the decision overturning Roe, saying the unprecedented breach of court protocol “was very damaging.”

“Was there an earthquake inside the court?” Wallace asked.

“An earthquake?” Breyer responded. “It was very damaging because that kind of thing just doesn’t happen. It just doesn’t happen. And there we are.”

It’s telling that the justices are united in condemning the leak but not a single one of them have offered a reason why other than it being a break from tradition. Some comments nod toward early leaks frustrating ongoing negotiations — which was certainly the hope of whichever conservative leaked it — though you’d be hard pressed to get a single justice to swear under oath that the opinion was seriously up for discussion at that point. These weren’t early memos circulating around the Court, it was a fully formed, lengthy opinion. It was done. None of these justices can credibly claim it wasn’t.

And once again we come back to decrying the leak… “just because.”

Other justices have also blasted the leak – including Justice Elena Kagan, who earlier this month called it “horrible” – and public opinion of the high court worsened after it occurred.

Hm. I wonder if the Court did anything else — maybe some “substantive decision” — that could be responsible for its unpopularity? Look, just because the justices engage in this stupid fiction doesn’t mean anyone else should. CNN is, ostensibly, a news outfit! It borders on journalistic malpractice to write a sentence implying that releasing an opinion a few weeks early shook the public more than the actual opinion itself.

As posted on Reddit:

y78fw74zhqx81

(via Reddit, posted by u/mikec215)

The country would be a better place if Justice Breyer’s vision of the Supreme Court reflected reality, but it doesn’t. And while he’s obviously smart enough to recognize when decisions will bite back, it seems like he hasn’t quite shaken the misconception that good faith efforts still matter on this Court. They don’t.

And they haven’t for a long time.

An earnest institutionalist might think the country is better off if the Court sells the public on the idea that they’re all friendly, even-handed people just working together behind closed doors to make everything work.

But the emperor has no robes anymore.

Everyone knows that’s not how it works these days. And not because of any leak, but because Alito’s blasting vitriol all over the place. Except for John Roberts, the conservatives on the Court have all but taken out billboards advertising their us vs. them approach to rewriting the Constitution. No amount of collegiality spin is going to fool anyone anymore.

For institutionalists like Justice Breyer, the first step is admitting the institution has a problem. Thankfully, it seems like we’re seeing some early signs that this message might finally be coming through.

And the second step is realizing that “you win some, you lose some” is never an acceptable philosophy when millions of people are watching their rights disappear.

Breyer warns justices that some opinions could ‘bite you in the back’ in exclusive interview with CNN’s Chris Wallace [CNN]


HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.





Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

Whaddya Know? A Majority Of Americans Support Expanding The Supreme Court


Activists For Expanding The Supreme Court Rally Outside The Court Building

(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Demand Justice)

Well, this has got to be a fly in John Roberts’s “I swear the Supreme Court is legitimate” tour: Marquette Law School just published the results of its latest survey on the Supreme Court and fans of the Court won’t be happy.

First of all, overall approval isn’t great — 40 percent of respondents approve of the Court. But, in a post-Roe world, SCOTUS’s tanking polling is nearly a given. What truly stood out is that a majority of Americans — barely at 51 percent, but count it nevertheless — now support expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court.

I’ll tell you, in history class when we learned about the New Deal and how FDR tussled with the Supreme Court over the expansion of executive power, I never thought Court packing would come back. …Then again, I never thought one party would callously leave a Supreme Court seat open for over a year in an openly political move to steal a place on the Court. Mostly people also probably didn’t expect the vitriolic — and poorly reasoned — decision in Dobbs that stripped millions of people of rights and launched us into a dystopian reality of ever worse stories of women who can’t receive abortion care in their home state. Time makes fools of us all.

Faced with lifetime appointments of jurists who seem way more interested in political victories than in rights and the law, well, diluting the power of each individual justice just may be the fastest way to rebalance the Court. And it looks like most Americans agree.


Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).





Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

Biglaw May See ‘Targeted Firings’ Instead Of Mass Layoffs


fired firing layoff laid offHistorically, in weaker economies, firms have had cover to counsel out of the firm people who have been underperforming relative to expectations. Usually the worst offenders go first, with firms working their way up from the bottom, starting with those who have been weak performers over a number of years.

Layoffs mean, to me, mass firings of people. I think here it is more a list of people and offices and what they contribute to the firm. The people at the bottom of that list are ones that have been weak performers for years. Targeted firings of weak performers are more likely.

— Kent Zimmermann, a legal industry consultant at Zeughauser Group, in comments given to the American Lawyer on what we can expect to see happen when it comes to personnel as a result of the slowdown in demand for legal services, especially in M&A. On that note, an anonymous global M&A practice head told Am Law, “We are not interested in firing people,” while at the same time saying that overall performance was being looked at closely, including office attendance and hours expectations.


Staci ZaretskyStaci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Enter your email address to sign up for ATL’s Layoff Alerts.





Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

A Letter To A New Associate: 2022 Edition


job offer letterIt’s September, and the signs of autumn are here. Kids are back in school, pumpkin spice is back on the menu at Starbucks, and the latest crop of first-year associates are showing up for work at law firms across the country. And it’s to those new attorneys that this column is most directed.

If you can name an emotion, you’re probably going to be feeling it sometime in the next few months. Joy, confusion, anxiety, fear, stress, triumph. These first steps on the journey of your practice will be rich with experiences, many of which you’ll carry for the rest of your career. With that in mind, here are some thoughts from a former first-year associate on how to make this next year everything you want it to be.

Hold On To What You’ve Accomplished

Last summer was all about landing a job, and guess what? You did it. A law firm composed of experienced, successful attorneys has given you its vote of confidence and is willing to pay for your work. They’re going to train you to become a better lawyer, and, if everything goes well, they may one day offer you a share of the partnership. You’re through the first major challenge of any lawyer’s career — you’re getting paid.

These first few months are going to be filled with challenges, and you’re probably not going to crush it on every one of them. You’re going to be given a lot of opportunity to doubt yourself, and if you’re prone to imposter syndrome, the transition out of school and into the actual practice of law can be deeply difficult. Self-reflection is a useful tool, but self-doubt isn’t. Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t do this, especially yourself. You’ve got a long way to go, but you’ve come a long way, too. Remember that, and trust yourself that you’re going to grow, get better, and make it through.

Become Someone’s Go-To

Success in the world of private law boils down to one essential question: when people have problems, which of those people calls you first? If enough of the right people think of you as their go-to solution for the challenges they’ll pay someone else to fix, then baby, you’ve got a book of business.

Chances are you’re not there quite yet, but the goal of becoming someone’s go-to person is still what you should be aiming for. Instead of paying clients, what you’re trying to develop now are relationships with the partners and senior associates within your firm. When they need research, briefing, or other work that’s in the first-year’s wheelhouse, you want them thinking of you as their first option. Even if you’re not charging them by the hour, your colleagues are your first clients. Be responsive, respectful, and attentive to their needs.

Once you’ve got those relationships established, you’ll naturally start moving on to the next phase of developing your go-to reputation: becoming a subject matter guru. As senior attorneys learn to trust you more, you can gain the experience necessary to take on more complex tasks. If you do that, then chances are you’re going to start developing expertise on topics that few in your firm, or potentially your entire bar, have experience with. Find those niches, develop your expertise, and then let the market know that anyone with questions in that area just needs to give you a call. Once the attorneys know you’re the person to handle a certain kind of problem, they’ll send their clients who need help with those problems over. And once the clients start calling you, you’re in control of your own destiny. All of that starts today. Be the one who people keep top of mind and rely on to solve their problems.

Be Deliberate About Your Work-Life Balance

The first years of private practice in law are notoriously demanding of young attorneys’ time, and discussions about the proper balance of work and home life have been part and parcel of Biglaw life for decades. Most of the financial and career incentives of law (and basically all of the business world) push attorneys to work extraordinarily hard, while few things besides ourselves are pushing us to take appropriate care of our outside lives or our mental and physical well-being. Burnout is real, but so are the benefits that come from getting off to a strong start. There are no one-size-fits-all answers when it comes to work-life balance.

The best you can do for yourself at this stage is to be deliberate and have a plan. Some people want to work all hours of the day, generate huge bonuses, and live the life of the hard-charging Biglaw attorney, and that’s OK if that’s their choice to do so. Some people want to work hard for a few years while they’re young, then transition to a more balanced lifestyle as their skill and experience have hopefully increased enough to compensate for those lower billables. Some people choose to prioritize their home lives out of the gate, even if it means their career development may be on a slower track, because that’s what matters the most to them. Any of those choices can be the right one for you, and they’re all approaches that I would hope your firms would be willing to support within reason.

Don’t drift along in your career wherever happenstance takes you. The key for you is to figure out your priorities, self-assess on whether you’re where you want to be, and communicate with your colleagues about where you want to go. If your home life or mental health are suffering and you need to step back, talk to the people who can make that happen. If you’re feeling fresh and want to dive in harder, let people know. You’ve worked hard to get this job, so keep working at making sure it’s the job you want.

Every Impression Matters

 The opportunity to make a first impression is a gift, and you’re about to be flooded with those opportunities. Now is when you start building your reputation as a professional, as an attorney, as a colleague, as opposing counsel, and it is entirely within your control to ensure the reputation you’re building is a good one. Treat people kindly and courteously. Do your homework. Treat everyone you meet like they might one day become one of the most important people in your lives because life is unpredictable and they very well might be.

We’re only clean slates at so many times in our lives. Now is when you get to build the story of who you are. It’s about to be one of the most exciting times in your career, and I hope you look back on it one day fondly. Until then, take care of yourself. The rest will follow.


GoodnowJames Goodnow is the CEO and managing partner of NLJ 250 firm Fennemore Craig. At age 36, he became the youngest known chief executive of a large law firm in the U.S. He holds his JD from Harvard Law School and dual business management certificates from MIT. He’s currently attending the Cambridge University Judge Business School (U.K.), where he’s working toward a master’s degree in entrepreneurship. James is the co-author of Motivating Millennials, which hit number one on Amazon in the business management new release category. As a practitioner, he and his colleagues created and run a tech-based plaintiffs’ practice and business model. You can connect with James on Twitter (@JamesGoodnow) or by emailing him at [email protected].



Source link

read more
Law \ Legal

Time Now, Pay Later: How LegalTech Can Tighten Payment Funnels


ATL-Legal-Tech-Non-Event-Promo-Image-1b-editA wise man once said (probably), that it’s a long road from doing the work to actually getting paid.

That’s especially true for law firms, where most attorneys are still billing by the hour, and taking payment in arrears. 

But there’s a better way to ensure you get paid for more of what you do, and it starts and ends with time, billing, and payment software for law firms.

So, for this episode of the Non-Eventcast, we brought on a quartet of popular guests to the show, to talk all about how modern law firms are managing these three essential components for running a law practice: Matt Spiegel of Lawmatics, Scott Clasen of TimeSolv, Tomas Suros of AbacusNext, and Sam Mallen of MyCase. 

I kicked things off by asking each of our guests how important it is for law firms to build and lean on systems in their practices, especially when it comes to time capture, billing, and collection (15:26). 

Next, we talked about how to simplify time tracking (23:28). After that, everybody tossed off some suggestions for creating invoices that are ultra-compelling to legal consumers (31:05). And, finally, each guest offered up some tips for making more money in the final business quarter of 2022 (36:14).

There’s nothing more important than revenue to the average law firm owner, so maybe this is the most important LegalTech podcast you’ll ever listen to.  (Too strong? Yeah, maybe – we’ll workshop that one.)

And while you’re here, feel free to visit the Legal Billing Software section of the Above the Law Non-Event, where we show you just how easy an upgrade can be.


Jared Correia, a consultant and legal technology expert, is the host of the Non-Eventcast, the featured podcast of the Above the Law Non-Event for Tech-Perplexed Lawyers. 





Source link

read more
1 2 3 60
Page 1 of 60