Gone are the days of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. law firm receptionists chained to their desks, limited to answering phones and taking messages.

Modern consumers in search of legal guidance expect more, including 24/7, responsive service and immediate answers to their questions. Office hours have become an obsolete concept, with potential clients often seeking to research firms and retain legal services at their convenience and from the comfort and privacy of their homes.

As technology advances, lawyers have more lead management options available, including virtual receptionist services, online intake forms or generative artificial intelligence-powered chatbots designed to meet consumers where they are and adeptly address their concerns. Firms that rely on these tools, rather than on staff employees alone, are far better positioned to thrive in today’s highly competitive legal marketplace.

The good news is that reception and intake are some of the easiest firm functions to offload. In-house staff can’t answer calls around the clock, but virtual receptionists and chatbots can, offering prospective clients the flexibility and convenience of full-time after-hours coverage. By outsourcing call handling and intake processes, you can increase your firm’s availability to new and existing clients while reducing administrative burdens and costs.

Choosing the right tools for your firm

There’s no shortage of virtual receptionists and intake tools for firms. The right fit will depend on your firm’s priorities, including cost, features and whether you want a legal-specific provider. Some companies focus exclusively on firms; others serve a broader market. However, don’t automatically discount the generalists.

Depending on your firm’s needs, they may very well check many of the boxes at a much more appealing price.

Before choosing a service, it’s essential to understand that outsourcing requires sharing your firm’s data with third parties, which in turn triggers certain ethical duties. These include the obligation to preserve confidentiality by vetting how and when your firm’s information will be accessed, used and stored by the provider.

With that in mind, let’s review some of the more widely used, stand-alone virtual receptionist services and client intake tools for firms. Information about pricing will be provided unless it’s not listed online.

Virtual legal intake and receptionist options

LexReception offers virtual receptionist services tailored for firms. They include handling calls, client intake, appointment scheduling and payment collection. LexReception differentiates itself by focusing on the legal industry, offering 24/7, bilingual availability and integrating with a wide range of legal practice management and payment processing tools.

Smith.ai combines live virtual receptionists with generative AI to manage calls, web chats, texts and Facebook messages while also handling lead qualification and customer relationship management integration. It also offers chatbots powered by generative AI to respond to online, social media and text messages. The standout feature is an “AI-first” receptionist, which streamlines intake workflows, provides multilingual support and transfers to human virtual receptionists when needed for follow-up. Pricing for each offering is available on the website.

LawDroid offers AI-powered legal automation tools that handle tasks, such as virtual intake, document drafting and client communication. LawDroid stands out for its early adoption of generative AI to support LawDroid Copilot, a legal assistant. The company’s forward-thinking approach makes it especially relevant for solo and small firms operating virtually. You can find pricing details on the website for various tools.

Ruby provides live virtual receptionists and chat services for small businesses, including firms, with an emphasis on friendly, human-first client interactions. The company consistently receives high marks for customer service quality and has strong brand recognition in solo and small firm markets. It integrates with some legal tech tools, and the website offers pricing information, including bundled options for live web chat and virtual receptionist services.

Back Office Betties delivers virtual receptionist and legal intake services staffed by receptionists trained exclusively in legal terminology and workflows. A number of integrations with legal products are available. The company’s flat-rate pricing stands out and is listed on the website.

Answering Legal is a 24/7 live answering service built specifically for lawyers. It offers features, such as call forwarding, new client intake and bilingual support. What sets it apart is the ability to customize call protocols and live call transfer capabilities that allow qualified leads to be quickly patched through to the firm.

Intaker offers AI-powered website chat tools designed to capture and qualify leads for firms through customizable, conversation-based interfaces. It integrates with many popular customer relationship management systems and legal software platforms. Its visually engaging, video-enabled chat experience, along with its focus on lead conversion, are notable.

The bottom line

Firms that take advantage of virtual receptionists and intake tools are simply more responsive and efficient. By ensuring that calls are promptly answered, leads are captured, and clients receive immediate attention—day or night.

Modern intake tools, whether AI-powered, human-staffed or a mix of both, reduce overhead and free up time for more analytical and nuanced legal work. This benefit can be particularly impactful for solo and small firms, enabling them to better compete with larger practices by offering scalable, professional client service without the cost of full-time staff.

Outsourcing reception and intake is one of the easiest and most impactful ways to improve the client experience and streamline operations. With so many options available, there’s a solution to fit nearly any budget or workflow. Invest in these tools now, and your firm will be better positioned to thrive and grow.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

Fourteen years ago, I wrote an article for a business journal that summarized a dinner conversation I had with my 4-year-old daughter. She asked me to explain “What is a re-sezz-ee-un?” By the end of our conversation, her greatest concern shining through her little green eyes was whether Santa Claus himself would be experiencing any effects of that “re-sez-ee-un.”

Much has changed since that conversation. That particular recession eventually ended, only later to be replaced by what some economists called a second one. The Cubs finally won a World Series. We sent an unmanned spacecraft to Pluto. An unprecedented world pandemic wreaked its havoc, and Donald Trump became our president, not once but twice.

My daughter has seen quite a journey as well. She became a singer, musician, artist, model, cheerleader and even an actress, playing the lead Dorothy in “The Wizard of Oz” at the Apollo Theater. She is a self-taught competitive gymnast and part of a team that made the national finals in Orlando, Florida. Perhaps most important, my little green-eyed girl grew up and graduated from high school, and she is now a college freshman trying to find her place in this crazy world.

Now we sit together, sometimes late into the evening, and we talk. She has never had any interest in becoming a lawyer, but she has always shown an interest in why I do it. Recently, she asked me a question that I haven’t heard in a while. She asked the difference between being a lawyer today and when I started many years ago.

“The difference is I don’t consider myself just a trial lawyer anymore,” I told her. “Clients once hired me to try their cases. They don’t want that today. Now they hire me to help their business avoid trials.” She looked up at the ceiling, raised her eyebrows and nodded, as if she understood me perfectly.

“Does that apply to all lawyers or just you?” Of course she would follow my answer with an even more difficult question. I had to think about that one.

The truth is that the legal industry has changed along with the rest of our world. First came cellphones. Then came the internet. Then came cellphones with internet and all the knowledge of the world instantly at our fingertips. With that came the expectation for instant satisfaction and an acute lack of patience. People want problems solved instantly, with relatively little discussion. When business owners experience unforeseen and unbudgeted issues, they want them resolved quickly. From Caterpillar to the corner restaurant, the last thing companies want is to devote their resources toward litigation. When businesses hire a lawyer, their historic desire for Perry Mason now takes a back seat to the need for Harvey Specter. Businesses no longer want to retain the best trial lawyer; they want the lawyer who can quickly fix the problem without the need for such elaborate time and expense.

This reality has resulted in a generational swing in which lawyers, just like those in other industries, are forced to adapt to be competitive. Don’t get me wrong: A trial lawyer still needs the skill and experience to try a good case; otherwise, the bluff will get challenged every time. Nevertheless, possessing excellent trial skills just isn’t the sole (or even primary) skill anymore that businesses are seeking. The real talent is solving the situation by avoiding the trial.

I believe this is true no matter what kind of trial lawyer you are. Ask an experienced personal injury lawyer how many cases insurance companies settle today compared with 10 years ago. Ask a criminal defense attorney how many accused are going to trial versus entering into a plea bargain.

Ask any business owner what he or she thinks about litigation. Don’t just ask ones who have been sued and lost; also ask those who have sued and won but didn’t consider it a victory because of the amount of legal fees they paid. I have tried hundreds of cases in my 30-year career. I have heard every criticism of our legal industry that exists, and many of them I agree with. Perhaps the worst of all is the notion that the cost of victory can be just as devastating as the agony of defeat. On the other hand, I have never received criticism from a client after we managed to avoid a trial.

I still have plenty of time left to practice law on this journey I began 30 years ago. Fortunately, my kids keep me “young at heart” and provide me with the tools to reinvent my career when needed. One thing is certain: More change lies ahead. Interest rates, government regulations and debtors’ ability to repay their loans were once easy problems to forecast, analyze and solve—but not anymore. Fortunately, I know I can always count on my daughter’s inquisitive green eyes to help me through the journey.

---

Joseph VanFleet is an experienced trial lawyer, focusing his practice on small businesses and community banks in addition to Fortune 100 publicly traded entities and large-scale lenders he has always represented. He has represented clients throughout the country and in numerous complex and multidistrict cases, and he has obtained victories in well over 100 trials, appeals and alternative disputes.

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Columns
3. ABA Day 2025: Your voice, your advocacy,…

Report from Governmental Affairs

April 9, 2025, 6:00 am CDT

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

What are you going to do when you retire? That’s usually the first question after the big announcement comes out. Everyone has plans, but retirees often discover that these were not as sustainable, lasting or rewarding as they’d thought, and they have empty hours to fill. At this point, developing meaningful alternatives can be overwhelming. Time passes, and opportunities are lost.

So well before I retired, I started a list of activities that I could do and might want to do in retirement if I got bored. It quickly reached 16 pages without much time or effort. It’s not a Plan A or a bucket list, and I can’t do everything on the list. It’s only a resource to consult if I’m stuck for ideas or want to reconsider my options.

It’s easy to create your own, and it’s not valuable just for those approaching retirement: Colleagues half my age now realize the value of starting early, not just to plan for retirement but to have ideas ready for any occasion, such as an unplanned sabbatical or a vacation. Regardless of age, one’s circumstances and interests change over the years; with more options ready now, you won’t waste precious time later.

Making an attainable list

I didn’t think that I’d need a list. But a lunchtime conversation with yet another bored, unhappy retiree caused me to reconsider. Back at the office, I opened a Word document an entered several retirement activities that readily came to mind—and then stopped. Racking my brain for more ideas would waste time and turn this into a burdensome project to avoid. So I put the list aside, knowing that I could return later. It was enough just to begin and allow my mind to work in the background.

Sure enough, as I walked to my car, my mind drifted. An idea emerged. It wasn’t new; it had just been buried deep in my brain. I didn’t want to misplace it again, so I stopped to dictate a note on my cellphone. I soon realized that immediately preserving a thought is a critical step in making the process work.

Later, as I read a magazine, new ideas came to light. There was an interesting book that I might like; a bicycle excursion to try in Missouri, which also reminded me of a nice Ohio ride; and a volunteer opportunity with the national Rails To Trails network that I might enjoy. And joining a local bicycle club would replace some of the workplace socialization that I would miss! I’d added five activities to my notes in five minutes. That was easy!

After a few more weeks of this serendipity, I added my notes to the Word document and found that I now had a full-page bullet list of interesting and fun activities. Categories emerged—biking, books, museums, volunteering, among others—so I put them in outline form. This generated more ideas. I liked running, and there were marathons that I wanted to run before my legs gave out. And so on. That took me to two pages without trying.

As I returned to my Word document from time to time, more ideas came to mind: piano lessons I could resume after many years, an incomplete urban studies degree that I could finish, and a geology course that I could take. And projects that I wanted to realize years ago but which had hit a brick wall: a historical marker, a veterans memorial along a local highway, and genealogical research. I didn’t have to or need to accomplish any of these, but the list would remind me that they were there to pursue.

It should be apparent that specificity is critical. Don’t just say “travel;” say where. For “movies,” list titles. Otherwise, your list will be a useless collection of vague notions. Further, specificity will trigger more ideas. You don’t have to come up with everything at once. List a few ideas, and let your mind percolate.

My list includes many minor activities that require little time—visits to certain museums, a research project or a short hike. Even if your Plan A is working nicely, it’s great to have a list of simple things that you can do. They fill an open day quite nicely. Yet they are easily forgotten unless you jot them down.

Closure—doing something for a friend or a relative before the passage of time makes it impossible and leads to regret—is the most intriguing category on my list. It included taking my older sister around Ohio to see places of personal interest but that she never was able to visit. We made that trip soon after my retirement, perhaps just in time. I wish I’d started my list decades ago: similar opportunities lapsed for lack of a constant reminder.

Put your list into action

How should you create your list? There are four guiding principles.

  • The naturalist John Burroughs notes: “How beautifully leaves grow old. How full of light and color are their last days.” Your retirement should be full of light and color, however you define the term, as well. So include only activities that are rewarding. A colonoscopy is not full of light and color. Nor is cleaning out the garage. They belong on some other list.

  • General Dwight Eisenhower cautions: “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.” Retirement plans aren’t bulletproof. Change happens. So unleash your imagination, and consider possibilities. It’s fine to focus on yourself; these are ideas, not intentions. Who knows what lies ahead? In life, as in war, it’s best to have options ready.

  • The economist Paul Romer observes: “Possibilities do not merely add up. They multiply.”

  • Keep it simple. This is a list, not an essay. Use few words and one line per item.

What goes in it? Anything full of light and color. Routine or bucket list, simple or complicated, long or short, tangible or intangible, practical or speculative.

Everyone has ideas about what to do in retirement, but it’s practically impossible to remember them all when the time comes. It’s a huge project just to try. Many don’t, so they lapse into boredom. I think that’s why my retiree lunchmate was so unhappy.

Fortunately, there’s a simple solution. It’s easy to start early and maintain a big list of possible activities without getting bogged down. And it can serve many purposes: setting priorities, clarifying interests, filling an open day or providing ideas for Plan B.

What I’ve related may seem obvious now, but it’s not intuitive. Nearly everyone, young or old, that I talk to about my list, has an “a ha” moment and thinks it’s brilliant. You’ll have to decide for yourself. But I think you’d find that creating a list is worth the small effort that’s required.

I have. Though retired, I continue to add to my list. It’s now a seventeen-pager—and growing.

---

Douglas R. Melin is a retired chief counsel at the Marathon Petroleum Corp.

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

Bold. Innovative. Visionary. At a time when many courts are losing the battle to provide access to justice, especially in low-income communities, the Arizona Supreme Court has brought fresh ideas to bridge the justice gap.

Vice Chief Justice John Lopez, at the invitation of the ABA Crossroads Caucus, discussed innovations his court has recently put in place in a conversation with moderator Mark Martin, dean of High Point University School of Law at the ABA Midyear Meeting in Phoenix in February.

As reported by the Legal Services Corporation in its most recent Justice Gap Study in 2022, low-income Americans do not get any or enough legal help for 92% of their substantive civil legal problems. To address this issue, Lopez and his colleagues have focused on improving access to legal services by lowering costs and increasing options. For lower income citizens, the court approved several programs, including the Legal Paraprofessional Program, the Lawyer Apprentice Program, the Legal Advocate Program and the Government Law Admission Program.

The Legal Paraprofessional Program, to highlight a very successful program, has been in operation since early 2021. It grants a license that allows nonlawyers to offer limited legal services, including legal advice; drafting and filing legal documents, opinions and strategies; and representing clients in court. The first licenses were granted in November 2021, and Arizona has 65 licensed LPs. The program improves access to justice by allowing trained nonlawyers to represent clients in criminal, family, civil, administrative and juvenile law matters. The University of Arizona and Arizona State University offer a Master of Legal Studies that prepares students for the legal paraprofessional licensure exam.

To address the problem of Arizona’s “legal deserts,” a term coined by the ABA to describe counties with few or no lawyers (i.e., fewer than one lawyer per 1,000 residents), the Arizona Supreme Court approved a Lawyer Apprentice Program. The program encourages aspiring lawyers to stay in Arizona, creates a pathway to licensure for law graduates with lower bar scores and increases the number of lawyers in the state. In a state that ranks 49th of 50 states in lawyers per capita, such a program is a necessity, but it’s a very disciplined necessity: Applicants must (1) be graduates of an ABA-accredited law school (2) score 260-269 on the Uniform Bar Exam (3) and commit to practice under the supervision of a qualified Arizona attorney for at least two years in rural Arizona or a public law practice.

More controversial are the Arizona Supreme Court-approved “Alternative Business Structures.” The ABS program allows nonlawyers to partner with lawyers in businesses that provide legal services. The program was created to encourage innovation in legal services and make them more affordable. ABS are subject to the Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court regulating the practice of law, including the requirement that the ABS employ a member of the Arizona Bar who supervises the practice of law. While such arrangements are common in the United Kingdom and Australia, they are actively debated in the U.S.

When Big Four accounting firm KPMG was approved on Feb. 27 to own a law firm under the ABS program, some skeptics asked whether such a step would actually bridge the justice gap or lower costs for lower-income citizens. Lopez acknowledges that some have also raised concerns that the “one-stop shop” model may put traditional firms out of business.

As part of the Arizona Judiciary’s Five-Year Plan, Chief Justice Ann A. Scott Timmer, a 2021 ABA Journal Legal Rebel, has made public trust and confidence in the judiciary a foundational goal. Lopez strongly supports this goal, and the court has put in place several initiatives to address the problem.

He told his audience: “Much of the public’s distrust in our courts is driven by inaccurate media coverage of our cases. Too often, media coverage centers on a case result and often fails to accurately identify the issue, if at all. Inaccurate framing of judicial decisions is then used to drive a narrative that judicial opinions are invariably political decisions. To that end, too many media reports on judicial opinions are limited to the party affiliation of the judge, the case result and its political significance or palatability. This coverage encourages public cynicism and distrust of courts.”

To counter objectively inaccurate characterizations of judicial opinions, the Arizona Supreme Court recently adopted a practice of releasing a brief summary of the judicial opinion that identifies the issues and sets out the reasoning and the decision in the case. Lopez observed that the initial results seem to be positive, noting that coverage of judicial decisions has been more accurate. He said the purpose and effect is not to diminish critical reporting of decisions, but to increase the likelihood that the criticisms and coverage accurately reflect the actual issues, reasoning and conclusions in the case.

Lopez’s final topic was retention elections. Arizona adopted a merit selection system in 1974 that applies to Arizona’s appellate judges and trial court judges in Arizona’s four most populous counties, where a nonpartisan commission of lawyers and citizens investigates and evaluates candidates for judicial positions. The commission then submits the names of the most highly qualified applicants to the governor, who makes the appointment from that list.

Once appointed, judges are subject to retention through regularly scheduled retention elections, by which a majority of votes in favor of a judge results in retention for another term. During judges’ terms, beginning in 1992, a commission of citizens and lawyers, known as “Judicial Performance Review,” assessed judges’ performances and issued recommendations to the voters prior to an election.

From 1974 to 2020, no endorsed judge had ever been removed by voters. In fact, most judges recommended for removal by JPR were retained by voters. Moreover, during those nearly 50 years, only three judges were removed by voters in retention elections; all were embroiled in legal scandal or were otherwise deemed unfit by the JPR Commission.

But, Lopez said, “Something began to change about Arizona’s retention elections in 2020. For the first time, a major political party targeted judges for nonretention. All were retained. But in 2022, voters failed to retain three Maricopa County Superior Court judges. In other words, as many judges were removed by voters in one election as had been removed over the previous 48 years. Notably, two of the three judges had been recommended for retention by the JPR Commission—a first in the history of Arizona’s merit selection system. One of the judges was targeted not for his judicial performance, but rather for his prior associations and his work as an assistant A.G. in Arizona.”

In 2024, the merit selection system, including the retention election, became a major political issue. One side of the partisan/ideological divide cited an unpopular abortion decision, while the other side of the divide expressed dissatisfaction with the court’s election decisions. These political forces culminated in two primary events: (1) a significant campaign was marshaled to remove two members of the Arizona Supreme Court (2) and Proposition 137 was placed on the ballot to eliminate routine retention election for judges unless they committed various crimes, filed personal bankruptcy or were not recommended for retention by JPR. This proposition was rejected by nearly 80% of voters.

Lopez concluded his presentation by questioning the wisdom of politicizing the merit selection process. He quoted the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who called the prospect of jettisoning the merit selection system “a great step backwards.”

---

Jo Ann Engelhardt is a member of the ABA Board of Governors representing District 8, a member of the board of the American Bar Foundation and a founding member of the ABA Crossroads Caucus.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

I was honored to facilitate the “What’s Hot?” session for leading large law firm innovation professionals at the 2025 invitation-only Strategic Knowledge & Innovation Legal Leaders’ Summit in New York City on March 27, with Oz Benamram, the event’s co-founder and the former chief knowledge and innovation officer at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.

In a combination of discussion and exploration of survey research, the conversation served as a roadmap for law firms aiming to advance their practices into the future.

The SKILLS survey interviewed approximately 100 professionals in the first quarter of 2025 regarding their use of various artificial intelligence applications. The research respondents primarily came from large law firms, although firms of all sizes that emphasize innovation were encouraged to participate. The overwhelming majority (70) were based in the United States, with nine from the United Kingdom, eight from Canada and 13 from international law firms, mainly split between New York and London headquarters and various other countries. Completing the survey was a requirement to attend SKILLS.

Large law firms are deploying generative AI

The report identified 22 use cases and 180 solutions. On average, the law firm leaders that responded have 18 active generative AI solutions, six in a pilot phase and 22 under consideration. The most common use cases included contract drafting, time entry, due diligence and legal research.

One foundational principle resonating with the group is the leadership essential for driving change, and participants offered several recommendations to gain support. First, effective change management demands consistent communication from the top down throughout the organization. Second, innovation leaders who report directly to an executive, including the managing partner, may wield more influence in implementing change. Third, cross-functional leadership can enhance a team’s value for specific projects.

Nearly all SKILLS law firms have AI use policies

Nearly all law firms that responded (99%) have an AI use policy. However, fewer firms have developed an AI strategy (92%) or created an AI task force (87%). These results underscore the significant importance that law firm leaders place on tactical AI guidance, effective deployment protocols and collaborative talent.

They also serve as vital benchmarks for innovation teams dedicated to laying the groundwork for new initiatives. Without policies, strategies and skilled teams, companies may struggle to gain the essential trust of their internal stakeholders and clients needed to succeed with generative AI. This is particularly important as many legal professionals still fear and remain unfamiliar with several AI applications used by the respondents.

Developing an AI roadmap requires leadership and a framework

During the discussion, attendees recommended that policies governing the use of artificial intelligence include provisions for ethics, restrictions on firm-approved products, the significance of human involvement and a framework for risk assessment. Companies should also enhance their efforts by collaborating with external providers to supplement limited in-house resources.

While the adoption of generative AI at some firms is strong and sustained, the audience agreed that no clear demographic patterns exist. One attendee noted that the more senior a professional is, the greater value they can derive from using an AI platform by asking “smarter questions,” given their depth of knowledge and ability to add substance to a prompt.

Innovation teams are adapting to the shift from tools to transformation

Unsurprisingly, the innovation teams at the responding law firms hold primary responsibility for implementing the firms’ AI strategies (59%), closely followed by knowledge management (44%) and IT (43%), both of which share a similar level of oversight.

While the innovation team’s involvement has remained stable over the past year (59% in 2025 compared to 62% in 2024), knowledge management (44% in 2025 compared to 63% in 2024) and IT (43% in 2025 compared to 74% in 2024) have seen changes. Additionally, a quarter of respondents in 2024 indicated that other departments provided input, and 15% relied on external support for their AI initiatives.

Specific law firm trends have influenced which teams are responsible for certain actions. The discussion among law firm leaders regarding the deployment of artificial intelligence has quickly transitioned from technology to transformation. Law firms are increasingly reexamining their entire suite of applications and evaluating the quality and integrity of their data to ensure that any large language models they use can deliver the best results.

In 2025, this will concentrate less on technology and more on redefining the law firm’s strategy for maximizing the value of its information. Consequently, the innovation, IT and knowledge management teams will work together to navigate AI’s transformative impact on the firm.

Many organizations lacked clarity a year ago as law firms were still assessing potential applications and use cases. The rapid pace of AI development and the insatiable demand for its availability necessitates a cross-functional and interdisciplinary team to drive the firm forward, with a designated ambassador coordinating its proliferation. That diplomat is the head of innovation at many firms, whose responsibilities are broader and deeper than in 2024, yet the diplomatic corps remains multifaceted.

In particular, the role of IT teams in law firms has become significantly more prominent since the pandemic. As budgets have increased, cybersecurity has become essential, and growth is closely aligned with technology. This position emphasizes holistic operational excellence rather than merely digital transformation.

Another important trend to note is the expansion of knowledge management to include innovation, legal operations and artificial intelligence. Today, law firms frequently recruit talent from knowledge management and either assign responsibilities for innovation or promote a KM leader to a broader innovation-focused role. While only 35% of respondents work at firms that have appointed a “Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer” or created a similar leadership position, this will likely change and influence who addresses or navigates these challenges.

While the data indicates that innovation teams are becoming the primary AI stakeholders, the ownership structure remains more nuanced due to overlapping talent and experience. Additionally, more professionals use the term “innovation” in their titles.

The majority of law firms have deployed generative AI

More than two-thirds of participants (73%) have implemented an internal generative AI solution—either developed an AI chatbot internally or deployed one through a secure API. Sixteen percent reported that they built or commissioned a custom internal language model. Although uncommon, almost a quarter (24%) have created client-facing or revenue-generating products using generative AI. This trend appears to mirror the actions of law firms several years ago, which initially developed mobile apps for internal use and later began offering more comprehensive versions to clients.

One participant suggested creating a fully accessible library for generative AI prompts and project-specific recommendations, akin to Netflix for queries.

OpenAI’s GPT is the leading LLM in law firms, but the generative AI support market is fragmented

Among the 73% of respondents who have implemented a generative AI solution, about three-quarters (76%) use OpenAI’s GPT as their foundational LLM model. Anthropic’s Claude ranks second with 19%, while Google‘s Gemini ranks third with 15%. Interestingly, 3% reported developing with China’s DeepSeek.

A third (33%) reported using an external provider to help them build their language model; however, the market remains fragmented. Respondents mentioned about 15 applied AI partners. Although consolidation is expected, the current demand will likely drive short-term growth rather than contraction in the provider market.

Encouraging the adoption of generative AI remains challenging

While 73% of respondents indicated that their firms utilize a legal AI assistant or chatbot, 62% have adopted the application across the entire firm or a substantial subset for testing purposes.

Adoption rates have remained low, with only 22% reporting a 50% to 100% adoption rate. This low adoption level is one reason certain teams stopped using specific tools. Other factors include cost-effectiveness and the availability of better alternatives. As the market grows and the barriers to entry diminish due to advancements in robust AI models, competition will continue to intensify.

To ensure success, the attendees agreed that law firms should begin their initiatives with individuals who are willing and passionate, especially since adoption is rising within the existing user base rather than from a surge in new participants in any given project.

Additionally, when evaluating technology and processes, exploring markets beyond the United States, especially in Europe, can be advantageous for generating fresh ideas and acquiring a thorough understanding of the evolving legal industry.

In some firms, discussions about generative AI use cases are reigniting interest in document automation. It is experiencing a renaissance, as it may provide a more effective and cost-efficient solution to the challenges that some professionals expect generative AI to address.

AI legal assistants and chatbots are leading use cases

The research indicated that an AI legal assistant or chatbot was the most popular use case. Other significant applications included data extraction, summarization, legal drafting, contract review and analysis, proofreading, research and searching. In contrast, the least cited applications were patent and IP drafting, litigation management, automation of discovery responses, pitches and proposals, and compliance.

When considering a new application, “try to avoid signing a long-term agreement,” advised an audience member, who added, “Price renewals are also absurd, and a similar tool is often available at half the cost with better functionality.” A peer offered, “Applications without a unique value proposition, i.e., a moat protecting their competitive advantage, may not be worth a long-term investment.” Finally, one participant cautioned, “Don’t try to learn everything because the technology will continue to evolve and only get faster.”

---

Ari Kaplan is a lawyer and legal industry analyst who publishes benchmarking reports on legal technology trends and is an experienced webinar and conference facilitator.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

For decades, ABA Day has brought together legal professionals from across the country to advocate for critical issues affecting the legal profession and access to justice. In 2025, we are expanding this tradition to ensure that every lawyer—whether in Washington, online, or at home—can play an active role in shaping the future of the law.

This year, ABA Day 2025 will include three components:

ABA Day in Washington (April 8–10): The traditional cornerstone of our advocacy efforts, where ABA members meet face-to-face with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to discuss key legislative issues.

ABA Day Online (April 9): A live-streamed, interactive event featuring policy discussions, training sessions, and real-time advocacy opportunities, allowing participants from across the country to engage with Congress digitally.

ABA Day at Home (April 11–27): An in-district advocacy effort empowering ABA members to meet with their elected officials in their home districts, ensuring that our voices are heard at the local level.

As technology continues to shape the legal profession, it’s also transforming how we advocate. While the tradition of in-person meetings on Capitol Hill remains essential and continues to be the most effective way to move the needle on issues in Congress, we recognize that not every lawyer can travel to Washington, D.C. That’s why we are making ABA Day Online and ABA Day at Home a central part of our 2025 efforts. Click here to register today.

ABA Day Online: Advocacy at your fingertips

For those unable to attend in person, ABA Day Online provides a powerful opportunity to participate. This two-hour live broadcast on April 9 will feature:

• Messages from key members of Congress leading legislative efforts on our advocacy issues.

• Keynote speakers and panels on major legislative issues impacting the legal profession.

• Live training sessions to help advocates learn how to effectively engage with their representatives.

• Real-time advocacy opportunities using ABA’s digital tools to contact Congress instantly.

• Breakout sessions hosted by ABA Sections, Divisions, and Forums, providing targeted advocacy discussions on critical legal topics.

With the ability to watch from anywhere, participants can take immediate action while engaging with fellow advocates nationwide.

ABA Day At Home: Bringing advocacy to your community

Following ABA Day in Washington, we’re taking advocacy directly to lawmakers’ home districts. From April 11–27, ABA members are encouraged to meet with their representatives and senators in their local offices. These meetings will mirror those held in Washington but will focus on building long-term relationships with congressional staff and officials.

To assist with in-district meetings, ABA will provide:

• One-pagers and talking points on key advocacy issues.

• Guidance on scheduling and conducting meetings with congressional offices.

• Opportunities to invite lawmakers to visit legal aid organizations and pro bono clinics.

Why your participation matters

The legal profession plays a unique role in protecting democracy and ensuring equal access to justice. Through ABA Day 2025, we have an opportunity to unite as one voice—whether in-person, online, or at home—to advocate for policies that strengthen the profession and benefit the public.

This year’s key issues include:

• Access to legal services and disaster aid funding for LSC

• Judicial security and the JUDGES Act

• Tax fairness for law firms and professional service businesses

• Defending Public Service Loan Forgiveness

By participating in ABA Day 2025, you are making an impact, regardless of where you are.

How can you get involved?

• Register for ABA Day to participate and learn more.

• Plan an in-district meeting with your lawmakers between April 11–27.

• Spread the word—encourage your colleagues to get involved and share ABA Day resources on social media.

Join us and make your voice heard. Advocacy is stronger when we stand together.

To learn more and register, visit ambar.org/ABADay today.

---

This column is written by the ABA Governmental Affairs Office and discusses advocacy efforts by the ABA relating to issues being addressed by Congress and the executive branch of the U.S. government.

Ari Kaplan recently spoke with Edward Chick, the chief revenue officer at NopalCyber, a managed security services provider that offers outsourced cybersecurity support while seeking to democratize enterprise-level security for law firms and organizations in other sectors.

They discussed best practices to help law firm leaders identify cyber threats, mistakes that they are making with their cybersecurity protocols, how often they should test and update their cybersecurity procedures, and where to leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning to enhance cybersecurity.

Ari Kaplan: Tell us about your background and your role at NopalCyber.

Edward Chick: I have been in high-tech software and services for decades. I’ve worked with SAP, IBM and Oracle. Additionally, I have experience with smaller companies, including startups, and I have successfully helped them establish a stronger presence in the marketplace. I’m passionate about assisting customers in leveraging technology and services to enhance their operations.

Ari Kaplan: What makes NopalCyber’s method of identifying and prioritizing internal and external threats unique?

Edward Chick: Cybersecurity is sometimes not seen as important as it truly is because it operates behind the scenes. Many individuals using technology or engaged in business assume that others are managing these aspects. At NopalCyber, we have observed that a lot of complexity leads organizations and business executives to categorize it as an IT issue. Therefore, our business goal is to democratize cybersecurity, making it more accessible and bringing it to the forefront of business leaders’ awareness. We aim to collaborate with IT professionals to provide them with the support and resources necessary to achieve greater success. We serve multiple industries and possess decades of experience in the legal sector and many others. What we’ve observed is that the battle continues and is becoming more severe. The value we provide is our tech stack neutrality; we work with technologies that organizations have already invested in, often heavily. Many of these technology platforms come with built-in tools, like those from Microsoft or AWS. On average, organizations use about 30 different cybersecurity-related protection tools. These organizations may encounter thousands of alerts and alarms daily, facing a ‘needle-in-a-haystack’ challenge to identify the most critical issues. They must find ways to resolve these problems and take proactive measures to prevent them from occurring. There is enormous pressure on IT, especially in the United States. At NopalCyber, we bring both expertise in the particular industries these companies operate in, such as legal, and the resources to work with all the various technologies they are employing, thereby supplementing and strengthening their security posture.

Ari Kaplan: Which assets are most critical for law firms to protect?

Edward Chick: Absolutely everything. We begin by helping individuals become more savvy in protecting their interactions with technology, such as passwords. However, many bad actors are also targeting website applications or platforms or underlying data to gain access to something valuable. In business, there are two key areas of truth: the accounting systems and the contracts they manage. These represent formal areas of substance, with legal practitioners overseeing one-half of that. The bad actors are aware of this and see legal activities as potential targets. We’ve noticed that midsize law firms often lack sufficient protections. Insurers recognize this and the cost of cyber insurance, especially in the legal field, is quite high while coverage is actually declining, meaning you pay more for less. One of NopalCyber’s added values is our ability to strengthen these companies’ postures, which can help reduce cyber insurance costs and provide better protections from insurers. Another critical factor involves regulators. Even if a specific company is not heavily regulated by, for example, the SEC, the customers they work with may be subject to regulations. Over the past six months, we’ve seen an increasing requirement from the SEC for companies to enhance their compliance. They now have a duty to report any concerns. In the legal field, because lawyers collaborate with other firms, they engage in a community of activity related to specific matters or contracts, potentially involving participants who are heavily regulated. Naturally, insurance companies are aware of this and heighten exposure due to the regulators mandating protections that the insurance companies are then expected to cover. This creates a network of interlocking dependencies, and at NopalCyber, we can significantly assist in strengthening the postures of these companies, allowing them to achieve a more favorable cost structure from their insurers and, of course, adhere better to the regulators’ requirements.

Ari Kaplan: What mistakes are law firm leaders making with their cybersecurity protocols?

Edward Chick: They’re often taking it for granted. These are competent professionals with expertise in their field, and they reasonably assume that IT has this under control. However, the fact is that IT is under tremendous pressure; the bad guys are constantly changing their strategies and tactics. We also often notice that general counsel and legal practitioners don’t offer their assistance frequently enough. They could take a leadership position by regularly reaching out to IT and asking, “How can we help? How can I prioritize the risks associated with the particular tools I’m using? How can I provide you with more information about my business activities to give IT and your chief security officers better visibility into what’s important for the business?” We’ve seen that this leadership fosters prioritization regarding budgets, costs and awareness of regulatory exposures.

Ari Kaplan: How often should law firms test and update their cybersecurity procedures?

Edward Chick: Definitely not once a year. Companies conduct annual penetration tests on their platforms or specific applications, for example, but that’s not really good enough. We’ve seen organizations increase the frequency to quarterly or even monthly. Our position is that all these aspects should be inspected 24/7. The bad guys aren’t waiting for an annual opportunity to act. Consequently, the exposures are permanent and require full-time attention. Legal professionals can play a very helpful role in drawing attention to this issue and ensuring that they stay up to date. They are trained to follow protocols for even simple tasks, like changing passwords. It is extraordinary how people take these matters for granted, and everyone assumes that someone else will be impacted, which is simply not the reality. It’s similar to any good business practice. The teams are in alliance with the rest of the organization they support; if leadership recognizes this and provides support to the individual security teams, then everyone benefits. At NopalCyber, we offer complementary services to organizations. We can manage the entire security environment for an organization or complement and support the various teams they may have in place. We view this as a proactive security posture, enabling us to identify issues before they arise because we can see much more than an individual firm might perceive. We play a critical role in providing early warnings about things they might not be aware of from an offensive security perspective, and we can provide the necessary assistance for defense. Some organizations are uncertain about their security standing, and we help them gain clarity on their position. We conduct something called “attack surface discovery,” which produces an analysis from an outside-in perspective without any privileged access to show what an organization looks like from a potential hacker’s viewpoint. We can share those results, and when we do engage, we leverage the tools they already have while streamlining all the alerts into a single ‘pane of glass.’ With our reporting tool, Nopal360, we make this accessible on desktops and mobile devices 24/7. The best practice is to always have these protections in place, maintain awareness of potential attack sources, and act quickly and effectively. Legal professionals who understand their own personal liability as lawyers, as well as the company’s exposure from a risk management standpoint, can be immensely helpful allies in this overall strengthening of security posture.

Ari Kaplan: How can legal organizations utilize artificial intelligence and machine learning to strengthen their cybersecurity?

Edward Chick: Virtually every law firm and legal practitioner worldwide is now aware of the benefits of various AI tools. I entered this space relatively early at IBM, engaging with legal applications using Watson over a decade ago, and I have seen remarkable results. Major benefits arise from leveraging AI, and the pace of advancement is accelerating; however, it also introduces certain risks. Malicious actors are using AI for hacking and exposing various cyber vulnerabilities. Moreover, employing AI often involves integrating data from large language models or utilizing third-party tools, which may require inputting sensitive information into these external systems that may not be entirely secure. Since lawyers and legal practitioners play an incredibly important role within an organization, they inadvertently raise risks associated with the use of AI, as these systems are often federated and rely on tools and data sources from outside to achieve business results, potentially exposing them to further risks. A key part of our mission at NopalCyber is to strengthen this posture and instill confidence in legal practitioners, so they can reap the benefits of these new tools while ensuring they do not create additional vulnerabilities. Our stance is to engage with these new innovations enthusiastically, embrace the benefits they offer—but with a vigilant awareness of cybersecurity realities.

Ari Kaplan: How does focusing on cybersecurity enable law firms to foster innovation?

Edward Chick: This will enable them to be more experimental and try various approaches. They should view cybersecurity exposure as a crucial aspect of engaging in innovation. Cybersecurity is essential to ensure that you’re prepared to embrace new innovations.

Ari Kaplan: How do you see cybersecurity evolving?

Edward Chick: It’s constantly changing every day, every hour, and trying to handle all this by yourself is truly challenging. The bad actors recognize that midsize firms don’t have the resources to manage this effectively. Our business value proposition is to assist those organizations in achieving a stronger security posture in a cost-effective manner that they would typically be unlikely to accomplish on their own, allowing them to focus on their core business. They should concentrate on what they excel at. Another critical aspect is engaging with their clients. It’s a good practice to initiate discussions with clients by stating that everything they’re going to do for that client incorporates cybersecurity awareness. Legal practitioners often lack knowledge about cybersecurity and don’t address it. However, if they become more informed and bring it up during their client interactions, we’ve seen that it significantly enhances engagement. It fosters trust, which is essential in the legal community. We see our role as helping organizations strengthen their relationships with customers, especially when acquiring new clients, as well as enhancing the existing portfolio of customers, some of whom they’ve served for decades. We’ve observed an engagement model where they reconnect with their clients and present the realities of cybersecurity in a way that they haven’t done before it resonates very well. This is part of a broader customer care journey and is quite powerful.

---

Listen to the complete interview at Reinventing Professionals.

Ari Kaplan regularly interviews leaders in the legal industry and in the broader professional services community to share perspective, highlight transformative change and introduce new technology at his blog and on iTunes.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

Benchmark data can prove to be invaluable when making decisions about the future of your law firm. Understanding how others in the legal profession are using technology to streamline workflows and increase revenues can make all the difference.

That’s where the recently released 2025 Legal Industry Report from AffiniPay comes in. This report, published annually, offers insight into how legal professionals from firms of all sizes and practice areas are approaching and benefiting from technology adoption. Over 2,800 legal professionals were surveyed for this year’s survey, which covers a wide range of topics, including artificial intelligence adoption, financial management software choices and the continued shift to remote and hybrid work environments.

The data reveals notable trends surrounding legal professionals’ technology choices and outcomes, including how software adoption impacts firm profitability and how remote work choices are changing the landscape of law practice.

Increased interest in AI adoption

With generative AI continuing to make headlines, it’s not surprising that the data shows that interest in it has increased since last year’s report. For example, in 2024, 31% of legal professionals reported using generative AI tools for work, up from 27% in 2023.

Interestingly, the rate of adoption varied across firm size and practice areas. Immigration practitioners led generative AI usage, with 47% incorporating it into their daily workflows. Other practice areas, such as personal injury (37%), civil litigation (36%) and criminal law (28%), also reported high usage.

Despite the individual growth rates, the survey showed that legal-specific generative AI adoption at the firm level slowed slightly. Only 21% of firms reported using AI in 2024, down from 24% in 2023. This decline is likely due to firms being in the exploratory phase—testing AI tools in specific use cases or pilot programs, rather than fully integrating the technology. The overall sentiment shows that while AI is still being explored, many firms are taking a cautious and measured approach.

At the firm level, civil litigation firms reported the highest generative AI adoption rate, at 27%, followed by personal injury and family law firms, at 20% each. Trusts and estate firms and criminal law practices had lower adoption rates, at 18% each. Immigration firms reported the lowest adoption rate, at 17%.

Overall, the data shows that for those who have adopted generative AI tools, they are relying on them quite often. Among frequent users, 45% use AI daily, and 40% use it weekly. The most common tasks accomplished with it include drafting correspondence (54%), brainstorming ideas (47%), conducting general research (46%) and summarizing documents (39%).

Financial management tools for profitability and stability

Survey data also highlights how firms are increasingly adopting financial management software to improve financial workflows. In particular, legal-specific accounting and bookkeeping software has become a key tool for many firms. Respondents indicate that 37% of their firms have legal accounting software built into their firm’s practice management system, while 16% said it’s built into their firm’s billing software. Another 11% use software that is integrated with, rather than built into, their firm’s law practice management platform, and 16% reported adoption of a stand-alone legal accounting tool.

The survey data shows that legal accounting and bookkeeping tools have notably increased efficiency, with nearly 26% of firms reporting one to five hours reclaimed per month. Another 17% reduced workloads by six to 10 hours, 7% saved 15 or more hours each month, and 4% recovered a whopping 11 to 15 hours.

Another valuable tool for improving workflows is legal billing tools. The legal professionals surveyed (80%) relied on invoicing software, with 27% saving one to five hours per month, 16% saving six to 10 hours, and 12% saving 11 or more hours. The end benefit of the time saved using legal accounting and billing tools? Significant gains in productivity and profitability.

Growth of online payment processing

The report also highlights the increasing adoption of online payment processing software, with 82% of respondents sharing that their firms accept credit and/or debit card payments in 2024, up from 78% in 2023. This adoption has resulted in time savings and financial impact. More than a third of respondents (35%) saved between one to five hours per month using online payment systems, while 14% saved six to 10 hours. Also of note is that firms accepting card payments reported improved collection rates, with 59% of firms noting that their collection rates increased “somewhat more” or “significantly more” each month.

The growing use of online payment solutions is indicative of a broader trend toward automating tedious and time-consuming administrative tasks that were previously manual. By offering more payment options, firms are not only improving their financial stability but also freeing up time to devote to more client work and firm growth.

Remote and hybrid work adoption

Finally, the report addressed remote and hybrid work, which has become a staple for many firms. About three-fourths of survey respondents reported using cloud-based remote working tools, with videoconferencing (79%), e-signatures (78%) and e-filing (76%) ranking the highest.

Additionally, the data showed that the hybrid work model has gained traction in the legal profession. According to the survey results, 28% of firms operate fully in office, while 21% use hybrid schedules for all team members. Another 19% of firms are fully remote, and 18% adopt hybrid schedules for some staff members.

Just as remote and hybrid work continued post-pandemic, so too did participation in virtual court proceedings, with 34% of respondents attending virtual hearings a few times per month, 21% a few times per week and 5% every day.

Even so, preferences for in-person appearances remain strong, especially for certain types of proceedings. Half of respondents prefer to avoid virtual hearings, followed by jury trials (45%), bench trials (43%) and motion arguments (39%). However, practice areas significantly impacted these results.

For example, trust and estate professionals were more likely than the overall average to prefer virtual litigation proceedings, with only 36% opting for in-person jury trials, followed by bench trials (35%) and motion arguments and depositions (at 30% each).

In contrast, civil litigation and personal injury lawyers showed a stronger preference for in-person proceedings, with 56% each favoring jury trials, and 46% and 49%, respectively, choosing in-person depositions. Similarly, criminal law practitioners also leaned toward in-person proceedings, with 59% preferring hearings, 58% jury trials, 55% bench trials and 49% motion arguments.

Immigration lawyers, on the other hand, were less likely to prefer in-person litigation, with below-average preferences for motion arguments (26%), status conferences (22%) and depositions (19%).

In conclusion

The AffiniPay 2025 Legal Industry Report highlights a range of preferences and trends within the legal profession. While generative AI remains a focus, the data shows that firms are also adopting proven cloud-based technologies for billing, payments and remote work, highlighting an increasing reliance on specialized tools that enhance efficiency, save time and improve financial outcomes.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

True crime has become a paint-by-numbers game. The formula is often copied and pasted, and finding a novel approach in the field is rare.

With that in mind, you can imagine my skepticism when I saw yet another true crime documentary suggested to me on Netflix. This time, it was The Kings of Tupelo: A Southern Crime Saga touting itself as a “bizarre true-crime tale” in which “an Elvis impersonator’s conspiracy theory sets off a feud that spirals into an attempted presidential assassination.”

That’s a lead that will make you take notice.

Still, I hated the first episode of the three-part documentary. Honestly, I almost didn’t make it to the second installment.

‘Welcome to Tupelo, Mississippi, where things are different.’

The vast majority of episode one focuses on explaining the environment viewers will navigate. The introduction revolves around one of Tupelo’s most famous sons: Elvis Presley. Elvis “tribute artist” Paul Kevin Curtis, who goes by K.C., is our narrative guide.

One thing is clear: Presley was born in Tupelo, and the town will never let you forget it.

I understood the need to set the stage. Still, the process was far too prolonged. Some of it helped introduce main characters, but that was the exception. I understand the production team’s desire to fixate on the film’s geographical pull—the “South,” and its trappings play a large part in the story—but it was a tad bit overdone.

Nevertheless, I’m glad I made it to the second episode … because this ish is bananas.

‘It was my introduction into the world of conspiracy …’

After meeting his future wife and becoming a father, K.C. realizes he can’t support his family just singing and dancing. He starts a janitorial business focusing on the Presley hook and seems to do well. In 1999, he lands a large contract with North Mississippi Medical Center to clean their facilities.

According to K.C., while working in a hospital morgue in 1999, he stumbled across a refrigerator containing a severed head and other body parts. He relays the finding to anyone who will listen, quickly catching the ire of the hospital administration. He’s fired, and by his own admission, “that night [he] made a decision to send the rest of [his] life trying to uncover the truth” of those severed body parts.

At this point most of the audience has no doubt picked up on K.C.’s peculiarities.

He quickly purchases a Gateway computer and spends day and night searching the internet and scouring chatrooms and message boards for information regarding body-part harvesting and trafficking conspiracies. Based on reports from his then-wife, brother and others around town, K.C. became somewhat obsessed with the idea that the hospital was involved in organ and body-part trafficking. According to local law enforcement, K.C. started to pop up consistently on their radar.

He was undeterred by what he describes as police harassment. He was “onto something,” and no one was going to stop his “one-man crusade” to share online the information he was discovering. K.C. drafted legislation on the topic and appeared to work very hard to introduce it to local politicians. His abrasive and obsessive tactics bring the ire of local and national politicians, though.

‘I guess God chose me … I am a warrior ninja with a sword of justice.’

He mentions his divine purpose multiple times throughout Kings of Tupelo. K.C. believes God has chosen him to fight the powers that be and expose the underbelly of body-part harvesting and trafficking. By the middle of the second episode, it’s clear he experiences delusions of grandeur at best and some sort of undiagnosed mental health issue at worst.

Throughout the series, I constantly found myself asking when the shoe was going to drop regarding some sort of medical diagnosis. The closest we get is a short segment where his family has him temporarily committed, but there is little discussion or further information.

Paul Kevin Curtis in Netflix’s The Kings of Tupelo: A Southern Crime Saga. (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

If you practice criminal defense, you know how often mental health issues arise in criminal cases. We go so far as to keep a copy of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM. Obviously, my job isn’t to diagnose my clients, but it’s good to know the potential signs in undiagnosed individuals. And if they have a diagnosis, it’s helpful to have more insight.

Working with a client who experiences mental health episodes can be challenging, but there are degrees of difficulty depending on the individual client.

Here, K.C.’s delusions of grandeur could merely be a primary feature of a delusional disorder, or they could be a symptom of something else, like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder—or many other conditions. Coupling this with what seems like consistent paranoia, though, gives the impression there may be more to the story than the documentary gives off. Make no mistake: He is coherent and sometimes quite funny—purposeful or not—throughout the documentary.

Nevertheless, like many of my clients who exhibit symptoms of an underlying issue, it’s hard to know whether K.C.’s “eccentricity” is an indicator of a potential diagnosis or simply quirks associated with his peculiar personality. Regardless, as his ex-wife explains, “Kevin did not have a big grip on reality.”

‘Sir, I haven’t bought rice in years … I never eat rice.’

When local politicians receive letters containing the poison ricin, K.C.’s name comes up as a possible suspect. When then-President Barack Obama in 2013 receives one such letter, the feds get involved and trace the letters back to a Tupelo mail office; K.C. is arrested and investigated as a terrorist.

His brashness and grandiose demeanor dig him even deeper. Had he mailed letters to all those people? Of course he had. Which politician hadn’t he contacted about his body-part-trafficking legislation? But as authorities begin to examine K.C., things don’t seem to fit. How could this Elvis tribute artist/janitor concoct such a high-level attack? Things didn’t add up—until they do.

I won’t get too far into the twist, as I really want you all to watch the series. It is wonderfully chaotic, and the team behind the documentary deserves applause for stepping outside the genre’s comfort zone.

OK, one hint: The twist involves a feud with a karate instructor.

And it’s this type of mania that ultimately sets Kings of Tupelo apart and makes it well worth the watch. The second half plays out like a cross between a Cohen brothers movie and Step Brothers, the classic Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly film. I mean that in the absolute best way possible.

If this sounds compelling, don’t ask me how; just go with it and find out for yourself.

---

Adam R. Banner is the founder and lead attorney of the Oklahoma Legal Group, a criminal defense law firm in Oklahoma City. His practice focuses solely on state and federal criminal defense. He represents the accused against allegations of sex crimes, violent crimes, drug crimes and white-collar crimes.

The study of law isn’t for everyone, yet its practice and procedure seem to permeate pop culture at an increasing rate. This column is about the intersection of law and pop culture in an attempt to separate the real from the ridiculous.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.