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.

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.

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.

Oral argument is the most visible part of appellate practice. And while lawyers differ on whether a good argument will change the outcome of your case, we can all agree that it’s the thing your clients and colleagues are most likely to see you doing. Not to mention the thrilling proposition that there may one day be a blurry artist’s rendering of you inside the Supreme Court.

So, it’s natural to get anxious. Here is a beginning-to-end guide on how to conduct an oral argument effectively.

Preparing for the oral argument

First, and most important, write an excellent brief. If you’ve got a choice between mooting your brief and mooting your argument, moot the brief. Have it read for clarity to make sure you read your cases accurately and, most importantly, so a dispassionate colleague can kill your darlings before they escape out onto the docket.

Next is prepping for obvious questions. In every argument, you should have an answer to at least these:

1. What is your best case?
2. How do you distinguish your opponent’s best case?
3. For any vital fact, where in the record can we find it?
4. For any vital fact, how do you disagree with your opponent’s characterization of that fact?
5. What specific relief are you asking for?
6. Where was your objection preserved, and why is it procedurally appropriate to grant you relief?

Then there are the far trickier questions to prepare for. For instance:

1. If a fact or point of law is hotly contested, can you concede it and still win?
2. If you win, how will it affect other cases?
3. Do we need to overturn any authority?

You can’t anticipate every question. But the key to making an educated guess is taking your opponent’s argument seriously.

Far too often, we don’t dedicate enough energy and effort to understanding our opponent’s position. The most cringe-inducing arguments are usually conducted by lawyers who couldn’t have imagined losing before they walked in.

Aside from anticipating questions, you should have the first 45 seconds or so of your argument memorized. Begin with “May it please the court,” and provide a brief roadmap of the point you will argue.

Roadmapping is vitally important. First, it forces you to structure what you are going to say. Second, courts tend to interrupt you less since they know you are planning to address an issue later. Third, and perhaps most importantly, roadmaps let you indicate you don’t intend to argue a particular issue and, if the court is merciful, that can help you focus on your strongest arguments.

A good roadmap allows you to listen to questions, respond thoughtfully and return to your planned argument.

A key part of roadmapping is developing a pithy description of your argument. Look, for instance, to how then-U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began her argument in United States v. Rahimi a case about whether the Second Amendment allowing disarming citizens subject to restraining orders:

“As this court has said, all too often, the only difference between battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.” Prelogar then goes on to describe the due process that someone receives before a restraining order can be issued, and the rule established in earlier cases that the right to gun ownership is reserved for “law-abiding citizens.” Prelogar, as an expert, knows that the first minute is the most important real estate in her argument. If she was stopped there and asked questions for the next 10 hours, she’d still have gotten out the elevator pitch for why she should win.

Finally, before you argue, you should have a conclusion mapped out. You won’t always get a chance to give your conclusion because questions may consume your time. But a conclusion adds a veneer of polish to your argument. A good conclusion can be very simple: “Because [a short summary of your argument], we ask that this honorable court [the relief you are seeking]. “Because the trial court abused its discretion in granting this motion under the incorrect standard, we respectfully request that this court reverse that decision and remand with direction to follow the correct standard” is a totally fine conclusion that reinforces your strongest points.

In short, think about and structure your argument like a good brief, even as you consider the possibilities for interruption.

What to do during the argument

  • Approach oral argument as an opportunity to address the judge’s concerns. Often a great oral argument is an argument where a judge asks you a question you never thought about before (e.g., whether your case is in the procedurally correct posture, whether an objection was truly preserved or whether there might be some other form of relief you could ask for). Even if you stumble, it is far better to learn about a problem with your case at the argument, while it is still potentially fixable, rather than in the opinion.

  • Never make the argument about you. Your opening should never contain any more information about you than your name and the name of your client. It should not contain an admission that this is your first time arguing, or that it’s a lovely day or that you’re so excited to be in front of this wonderful court. Get to your roadmap.

  • Listen to the panel’s questions and think before you respond. Take the advice you would give to your clients during a deposition: Stop talking when you get the question, listen carefully to the question and take a beat to consider. Great orators the world over know the power of a pointed pause—taking a breath establishes you as a thoughtful advocate.

  • Quickly and candidly, acknowledge your bad facts. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Lawyer, that you only objected AFTER the witness answered the question?” Many lawyers are tempted to dodge and weave at this point. But again, just as in a deposition, begin your answer with yes or no and do not force the judge to chase you down because it will irritate the judge and reduce your credibility. A bad fact acknowledged quickly will bring far less attention than a bad fact tracked down after cross-examination.

  • Answer hypotheticals directly, no matter how apt you think it. Excise “that is not this case” from your legal vocabulary. Begin your answer with a yes or no, and only then explain the distinguishing factor from your case.

  • Be agreeable. But not too agreeable. Judges are sometimes going to ask you to concede things that wreck your case, and you need to anticipate what those things are in advance so you can know the subtle distinction between a concession you can make to build credibility for the rest of your argument and a concession that will result in the ruling against you being written before you can Uber home.

Concluding thoughts

Remember, the point of oral argument is not for you to look brilliant. It is to get a preview of what the court thinks about your case. If you welcome every question like an old friend, you will develop a reputation as a forthright advocate, even if you cannot win every case.

---

Ben Sessions, a partner at Sessions & Fleischman, has been lead counsel in more than 65 jury trials, and he has been lead counsel in numerous cases involving novel statutory and constitutional issues before the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Georgia Court of Appeals. He’s a frequently presenter on motions and trial practice. He can be reached at [email protected].

Andrew Fleischman, a partner at Sessions & Fleischman, is a trial and appellate lawyer specializing in Georgia criminal and First Amendment law with an experience in oral arguments. He has been published in The New York Times, The Hill, Slate, The Daily Beast, Arc Digital and the Ordinary Times. He can be reached at [email protected].

---

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.

We all appreciate a showing of gratitude when we do good. But how often do we get it from our clients? Let me share some of my experiences that often made my day, while trying to manage the usual three-ring circus most lawyers experience.

I’ll start with George. George owned a coffee and doughnut franchise. He must have appreciated my services, as whenever he came to my office, he never failed to bring us a box of fresh doughnuts. Almost never. I used to joke with him while munching on a scrumptious walnut cruller, telling him my meter was running. He returned the compliment by quickly closing the doughnut box with my hand still in it fishing for a second cruller.

Once he actually arrived doughnut-free. I got alarmed, wondering whether I had been remiss in my services. Did I not return his phone messages quickly enough? Or did I keep him waiting at reception too long? Or did he not like the psychiatrist I sent him to for an assessment? The last explanation made most sense. Likely the shrink gave him a good work-over, asking all those personal questions such as, “Did you have a good relationship with your mother?” George then said to himself, “Who is this guy? That’s it. No more doughuts for Strigberger.” Who knows?

Food was indeed a common show of gratitude. Clients from time to time took me for lunch. One, Max, took me to two lunches for the same lunch. After a successful morning motion argument, he asked me to join him for lunch at a nearby restaurant in Toronto’s Chinatown. When he asked I told him the veggie tofu was excellent. He took that comment to heart. After the lunch.

When I returned from the restroom he handed me a brown bag containing a large order of tofu. I pleaded with him that though delicious I had really had enough tofu for now—I was tofued out. He insisted that I take it home to my wife. My wife actually despises this whitish rubbery substance, claiming it is likely manufactured by Goodyear. For the next three suppers I found myself dining on tofu while visualizing the blimp. More validation that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Some clients showed their gratitude by offering me unexpected money. I am talking about Dorianne, whom I represented in a farm fire claim when her insurance refused to pay her claim, alleging arson. Dorianne offered to pay me in addition to my fees a “tip” of 5% on the total recovery. We eventually settled her claim after a few years of litigation for about $100,000. I billed her the expected quantum and then discretely expected her to say, “And here is your $5000 tip I promised you.” The tip was not forthcoming. I kicked myself, wondering whether I should have noted on the bill, “Tip-5%-8%-10%-Thank you, your server, Marcel.”

I did actually once get a real tip, likely an illegal one at that. While spending the day in the courthouse as duty counsel, or per diem public defender, I provided legal advice to a gentleman, getting him to reverse his intended guilty plea to a DUI charge as he had a strong technical defense. He was so pleased with my advice that he offered me a $50 bill. I told him I could not accept it and fought him off bravely as he eventually slipped the banknote into my jacket pocket. My unlawful act has been a complete secret for over 50 years now. And it has bothered me constantly, like that character Rodion Raskolnikov, in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, I have chosen now to come clean. Phew!

Some clients have expressed their gratitude by offering to provide me their services pro bono. A gentleman in my neighborhood, Angelo, is a handyman superior. He can build or fix virtually anything—the neighborhood Tim Allen. He’s the other end of the spectrum of guys like me who likely sparked that joke, “How many lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb?”

I once resolved an issue with City Hall for him, following which he called me a genius. I did not totally share his assessment, but I did not wish to tell him that and offend his astute judgment. He said to call him anytime if something in my house needs fixing.

He once came to our house to repair a sink and, when he was done we noticed a parking control officer outside in the process of giving his van a ticket for “illegally parking on the boulevard,” I managed to talk the officer out of issuing the ticket. Though tempted, I refrained from telling the guy something like, “Hold off on that summons. This is Angelo’s van. Know who he is? Ever expect to have a broken sink?”

Some clients expressed their gratitude with words only. They were meaningful and sincere though at times strange. One guy, Nick, was charged with a cluster of offenses arising out of him stealing a Corvette. The prosecution was seeking a penitentiary term of 2-4 years. After complex maneuvering and negotiating, the judge gave him a lighter sentence, aka a kiss, of one-year incarceration. Nick was ecstatic and couldn’t thank me enough, as he buzzed around in the courtroom bellowing, “One year. Great lawyer. Wow!” (Actually he did not use that three-letter exclamation).

Nick must have been an influencer, as consequently a string of criminal clients approached me, amazed that I was able to get Nick off with one year. Trying hard to maintain my expected humility I told them all anybody could have done it. (Likely even Angelo).

Some of my colleagues had clients whose gratitude was expressed more lavishly than what I experienced. These comrades were invited by their wealthy clients to spend time at luxurious country cottages, onboard fancy yachts or at extravagant country clubs or golf courses. All sounds good but it never happened with me. The gratitude I experienced was more on the culinary side, such as doughnuts or a Chinese meal. Or a hand with a home repair, or a good word. The only possible chance of my landing a weekend on a yacht would have been had Nick stolen one.

OK I did score a modest tip, which to this day made me feel like Raskolnikov. Speaking of which I don’t even recall what I did with those 50 bucks. I doubt I bought myself a batch of tofu.

Marcel Strigberger, after 40-plus years of practicing civil litigation in the Toronto area, closed his law office and decided to continue his humor writing and speaking passions. His latest book is First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe. Visit MarcelsHumour.com, and follow him at @MarcelsHumour on X, formerly known as Twitter.

---

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

Abraham Lincoln had two careers; one as a lawyer and one as a politician—professions known for severe moral and ethical dilemmas. Given the events of the time, Lincoln faced new levels of dilemmas as he made decisions that helped start the Civil War and those that would finally end the conflict—and slavery with it.

All along the way, Lincoln had to navigate slippery gray areas where no simple right and wrong existed.

His moral struggles remind me of moments in my expert witness career where I have faced ethical crossroads. It’s never easy to decide when every option may have unintended consequences.

Lincoln’s character

Like most countries, we in the United States teach schoolchildren tall tales about our founders and national heroes, such as the myth of George Washington’s honest confession to cutting down a cherry tree. The perplexing thing about many Honest Abe legends is that they can be verified.

Lincoln was truly honest—to a fault for a lawyer or politician. His reputation for integrity spread throughout his community when he was a boy. The story about him walking miles to return six cents to a customer he accidentally overcharged while minding a store was, in fact, true.

Lincoln had a hard life as a child, much of it in poverty, with his family moving numerous times. He had only one year of formal education. His mother died when he was 9, his sister died 10 years later, and he never got along with his father. These experiences may have helped foster Lincoln’s sense of sympathy for others, a trait that attracted clients when he was practicing law but also heightened the moral questions he faced in representing some defendants.

For all his lack of schooling, Lincoln became known for his broad knowledge. Like other self-taught communicators of the day—such as the abolitionist Frederick Douglass and the poet Walt Whitman—Lincoln learned through personal reading. He absorbed values from the Bible and Aesop’s Fables and read about role models like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. This was the sort of schooling he would turn to throughout his two careers.

Growing up as a first-generation American in a tight-knit community, I often saw how adversity could bring out both the best and worst in people. So, I find it inspiring how Lincoln’s hardships shaped his empathy and sense of justice.

Lincoln the lawyer

Today, attorneys have years of training and detailed codes of professional conduct that examine the ethics of representing clients who might be culpable. But this was not the case in 1840s Illinois. No rules existed then, and as mentioned, Lincoln was largely self-educated.

When he began practicing law, Lincoln refused to take cases when he thought a prospective client was guilty or was pushing a false claim or defense. And when that belief arose after he began representing a client, problems arose with it.

In one oft-cited example, Lincoln lost all interest in a murder case after hearing testimony from a witness who convinced Lincoln his client was responsible. Lincoln’s longtime law partner William Herndon, who took over the case, admitted that the client’s behavior was “atrocious. The client was found guilty of manslaughter and imprisoned. And here, Lincoln’s sympathy set in. The honest lawyer felt so guilt-ridden, he petitioned the governor for a pardon and got it.

Herndon once famously said that two things were needed for Lincoln to succeed in defending a client: one was time and the other was belief that the cause was just. If either one was lacking, the case was lost.
In my work as an entrepreneur at the intersection of business litigation and being an expert witness and economic consultant, I have faced situations that promised profits but could compromise my integrity. There have been times I’ve had to turn away opportunities that didn’t align with my values, even if it meant taking a professional risk.

For example, one time an individual approached us seeking to sue another, and it seemed they wanted to litigate out of personal vendettas rather than legitimate claims. They even said, “We don’t care about whether we win or not, we want to cause them harm.” They hadn’t tried arbitration or having a conversation. I always feel that if somebody is pursuing litigation or wants to engage us for the wrong reasons, we have a moral obligation to explore other solutions. This brings to mind Lincoln’s saying: “Just because it’s legally right doesn’t make it morally right.”

Lincoln the president

By the 1850s, the United States was far from united—one side demanded an end to slavery and the other defended it. Anyone entering the White House or Congress was walking into the center of the biggest debate in U.S. history. Abraham Lincoln proved up to the task.

Upon taking office, Lincoln moved slowly and cautiously toward abolishing slavery. He didn’t have the constitutional authority to do so when he took office and trying to would have sparked a backlash. More importantly, Lincoln had an additional goal: keeping the nation from splitting into two. Allowing such a division would end slavery only in Northern states. An independent Confederacy, he believed, would prolong and expand slavery in the American South and potentially elsewhere by example. And even if or when an independent American South did eventually end slavery, the legal rights afforded to Black people would likely have been far less than in the North.

Other dilemmas Lincoln faced included debate over the Union’s treatment of Confederate civilians. Lincoln personally authorized harsher treatment than some Union leaders thought appropriate, but Lincoln was balancing one ill against another.

Lincoln as a model

What was Lincoln’s moral compass in treading through these gray areas? That answer has to be his sense of sympathy and belief in honesty. The combination of the two goes a long way.

In politics, common gray areas range from pushing campaign promises we know we can’t keep to conflicts of interest. In finance, they range from maintaining one’s fiduciary relationships to self-dealing and investing using insider knowledge. In real estate, they range from simple honesty to pushing a home sale that’s not right for the buyer.

What is our moral compass in such gray areas? I often ask myself, what would Abraham Lincoln do?

One Golden Rule was central to Lincoln’s moral philosophy: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” For Lincoln, the Golden Rule may have been more about being than doing.

Adam Ludwin, a business and maritime trial attorney based in Palm Beach, Florida, shared this perspective on Lincoln in correspondence with me:

“The ethical obligations that contemporary lawyers face today parallel similar ethical dilemmas faced by Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century. Regretfully, legal professionals may misrepresent or omit case facts to favor their clients rather than submitting the best possible legal argument. Like Lincoln, I believe that honesty and integrity are required characteristics of any attorney. In our oath of office, we pledge to ‘employ to maintain the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law.’ Abraham Lincoln’s adherence to the Golden Rule guided how he best represented his clients through an earnest lens of moral, legal, and ethical considerations.”

As Lincoln wrote in notes for a law lecture: “If in your own judgment, you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave.”

People in every profession should consider this advice.

---

Sameer Somal is the CEO of Blue Ocean Global Technology and the author of CLE programs for the New York State Bar Association. He is an active litigation consultant and testifying subject matter expert witness on economic damages, intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, and internet defamation.

---

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. Daily News
3. Federal judge fed up with ‘fiddle-faddle’…

Judiciary

Federal judge fed up with ‘fiddle-faddle’ requires lawyers to meet for lunch; how did it go?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 21, 2025, 2:17 pm CST

Lawyers who met for lunch upon the orders of a federal judge have submitted their report as directed.

According to the the Dec. 19 report, the lawyers chatted about personal matters, and then they had a “healthy dialogue regarding professional norms.” The wait person received a hefty tip.

Law.com, Above the Law (here and here) and AL.com have coverage.

Chief U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor of the Northern District of Alabama ordered the lunch after he criticized lawyers from Wheeles & Garmon, who represented former Koch Foods employee Pamela McCullers in a sexual harassment and gender bias lawsuit against Koch Foods.

McCullers’ lawyers had opposed a request by opposing counsel Littler Mendelson to extend a responsive pleading deadline—unless, the plaintiff’s lawyers said, Koch Foods agreed that it would not file a motion to dismiss in response to the suit.

In his Nov. 26 lunch order, Proctor called the gambit by the plaintiff’s counsel “wholly inappropriate, particularly in light of the looming Thanksgiving holiday. Such nonsense wastes time, damages professional relationships, and makes the lawyer withholding consent (or conditioning it) appear petty and uncooperative.”

“Conditioning or denying consent to an extension in this way is fiddle-faddle for an additional reason: It rarely provides any legitimate strategic advantage,” Proctor continued. “Refusing such a reasonable extension request stinks of petty gamesmanship. Professionalism demands that lawyers pick their battles wisely, and minor extension requests simply are not the place for unnecessary posturing.”

Proctor granted the request for an extension, ordered lawyers to go to lunch, and required the plaintiff’s counsel to pay the bill and the company’s counsel to pay the tip.

Proctor is an appointee of former President George W. Bush.

The lunch meeting was at Saw’s BBQ in Hoover, Alabama, on Dec. 16, according to the lawyers’ joint report.

“The discussion covered the practice of law, families, some big-ticket items for the 2024 holiday season, everyone’s small-town bona fides, and the plan for communication going forward in this matter,” the lawyers wrote. “A healthy dialogue regarding professional norms ensued.”

The report noted that the plaintiff’s lawyers paid the $74 bill, and the defendants’ counsel left a $74 tip.

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

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Bar associations could be targeted, Trump…

Bar Associations

Bar associations could be targeted, Trump DEI order says, spurring response from 2 of them

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 23, 2025, 10:55 am CST

Bar associations could be targeted for investigation under President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end “illegal preferences and discrimination” in government and the private sector.

The order issued Tuesday called for federal agencies to identify up to nine entities for possible civil compliance investigations, including large nonprofits and state and local bar associations.

The order declared that “influential institutions of American society” are using “dangerous, demeaning and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility’ (DEIA) that can violate the civil rights laws of this nation.”

Reuters has the story on the response from two state bar associations.

The State Bar of California said its programs won’t be affected because “none of our work in this space involves illegal discrimination or preferences.”

Victoria Santoro, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, also said the state bar is not breaking the law.

“I think there are better ways our federal government could use its time than looking at bar associations,” Santoro added.

The American Bar Association is not commenting at this time, a spokesperson told the ABA Journal.

The ABA’s Goal III calls for eliminating bias and enhancing diversity by promoting full and equal participation in the association, the legal profession and the justice system. Over the last few years, these ABA diversity programs and policies have come under scrutiny:

  • The ABA section that is recognized as the accrediting group for JD programs has been wrangling with changes to its diversity standard for law schools. As currently written, Standard 206 says law schools “shall demonstrate by concrete action” a commitment to having a student body, faculty and staff who are “diverse with respect to gender, race and ethnicity.” The section decided to revise the standard following a June 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious admissions programs at universities.

The latest proposed revision under consideration by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar requires a commitment to diversity for all people, including listed members of historically disadvantaged groups.

The wording change didn’t satisfy 21 attorneys general in Republican-controlled states, who warned that it “appears to perpetuate unlawful racial discrimination.”

  • At least nine ABA diversity programs were targeted by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty in a civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice in May 2024. The ABA’s general counsel, Annaliese Fleming, said at the time the ABA programs are lawful. and the allegations are “factually and legally incorrect.”

In October 2024, the ABA updated its description of one targeted program—its judicial clerkship program—because some language “did not accurately reflect the operation of the program,” Fleming said in a statement explaining the change. The program introduces law students from diverse backgrounds to judges and law clerks.

  • The ABA changed its diversity policy for continuing legal education programs that it sponsors after the Florida Supreme Court banned course credit in the state for programs with panel “quotas.” The old ABA policy had numerical requirements for diverse panelists; the new policy says CLE organizers “will invite and include” moderators and faculty members to create panels to meet Goal III objectives.

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

Educators and students preparing to begin a new semester can make good use of lessons about leadership and purposeful service that can be gleaned from the beautiful life of former President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter. That is especially so for law school communities for at least two reasons.

First, although lawyers are a tiny fraction of the population (0.4% nationally according to the ABA, four for every 1,000 people), they have always achieved a disproportionately large presence in public and private sector leadership roles. Accordingly, U.S. law schools are focusing on how best to prepare students for leadership roles. Carter’s life is a rich case study of the virtues of civility, collaboration and cooperation that the ABA has identified as hallmarks of professionalism.

Second, with the privileges of our honorable profession come public responsibilities. We can use our knowledge and skills to do well, but we a requirement of our law licenses is to strive to do good, as well, through pro bono work and other selfless service. Carter’s relentless determination to make the world better for others is a shining beacon for aspiring lawyers to follow.

Amid a constant barrage of disturbing news, even the gloomiest short days and long dark nights of this new year are brightened by remembering Carter.

Understandably and appropriately, people everywhere are discussing the lessons of Carter’s life. He deserves recognition for being a good and decent man committed to unwavering public service to his country and people all over the world. Perhaps he will be remembered most and longest for what he taught us about how to work and live.

In retrospect, the restless striving that helped clear his improbable untrod path—from the farmland of a small town in Georgia to commanding a nuclear submarine, from the statehouse in Georgia as a contrarian anti-segregation governor to the White House, followed by four decades as the most stubbornly impactful humanitarian on the planet—was driven by hard work, perseverance in the face of setbacks, strength of character, and virtue grounded in the universal code of conduct that he drew from his faith. These are qualities that serve any law student and lawyer well.

Historians, in my opinion, are likely to agree with former first lady Rosalynn Carter, who chaffed when people described her husband as the greatest former president. She often would correct them by pointing out that he was an excellent president, as well. Actually, we got two terms of work out of Carter during his single term.

A few days after he was sworn in, Carter moved to heal old wounds. He granted complete amnesty to Vietnam draft evaders, and his daughter Amy began fourth grade in a historic Black public elementary school a few blocks from the White House. He successfully pursued the Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt (which stand to this day), the Panama Canal treaties and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II.

Working with Congress, he established the Department of Energy and the Department of Education, sought and signed legislation limiting strip mining, and created the vast Arctic Refuge while doubling the land dedicated to national parks and wildlife preserves. Carter wrestled with “stagflation;” energy crises; the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor disaster; the Nicaraguan revolution; the end of détente and the renewed Cold War over the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan, which precipitated embargoes and the boycott of the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow; and, of course, the Iranian hostage crises and disastrous failed rescue attempt.

On Jan. 20, 1977, during Carter’s inauguration, my wife, Marla, and I somehow wormed our way into the front row of the enormous crowd lining the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route. Unabated patriotism and pride from the recent bicentennial observances bolstered the collective sense of relief and expectation for Carter’s presidency in those post-Watergate days, when the country also was still pained by the fractures of the Cold War, the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War.

Suddenly, the new president’s long black bullet-proof limousine stopped right in front of us. Carter and his beloved, Rosalynn, got out and a started walking hand in hand toward the White House. He flashed his signature toothy grin and waved, and the crowd roared its delighted approval. Every single person among the thousands there felt as if Carter was waving and smiling at each of them. Now, an inaugural stroll has become an obligatory (and carefully orchestrated) ritual, like routinely recognizing special guests in the balcony seats at the State of the Union speech. In 1977, it was a spontaneous joyful brave gesture.

Carter was then, and always, an American original, an uncommon man with an innate genuine common touch. A teacher.

After Carter lost the 1980 presidential election in a landslide to former President Ronald Reagan, the Carters devoted themselves energetically to a life of service to others, including work in communities building housing for less-advantaged Americans; humanitarian and social good works at home and abroad, such as monitoring elections; and advocating for environmental protection, peace and world health causes. He even is credited with eradicating a 3-foot-long Guinea worm parasite that each year preyed on millions of people in Africa and Asia.

The Carters remained true to their humble mission, even as accolades like the Nobel Peace Prize piled up, along with unusual honors, such as having a naval ship and a fish species named after Carter. Throughout it all, he taught Sunday school deep into his 90s. Practicing what he preached, he leveraged his fame not for profit but to advocate human rights and love for his neighbors in hot spots all over the world courageously and often controversially.

On Aug. 25, 2009, news of the death of my former boss, U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, reached us on our mobile phones just before the flight attendants secured the door for a long flight home from a trip to Israel. We had been talking about Kennedy’s failing health the previous evening at dinner in the lovely gardens of the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem.

At that dinner, Carter and Rosalynn were, to our surprise, enjoying a quiet meal a few tables away. We asked the headwaiter to deliver a note thanking them for their continuing public service. Carter’s unexpected return note was extraordinarily gracious.

As we continued our dinner, we recounted the bitter Democratic Party presidential primary fight in 1980 between Carter and Kennedy. We especially recalled the awkward moment on the convention stage when, after Carter secured the nomination, he unsuccessfully tried to get Kennedy to shake hands and pose together. It must have been painfully embarrassing for the sitting president to unsuccessfully chase the iconic senator around the convention stage for a photo op of unity that never happened. But Carter tried.

Poignantly, after we landed in Philadelphia, as we walked through the concourse, the first voice we heard on an airport television, delivering a touching elegy for Kennedy, was Carter, speaking via satellite link from Israel. We cried.

The respectful attention deservedly being paid to Carter’s remarkable life and career provides us with a powerful teaching moment. Not a bad lesson for law students and lawyers from a life well lived by a great teacher.

---

Nicholas W. Allard is the founding Randall C. Berg Jr. dean of the Jacksonville University College of Law in Florida and previously was the president and dean of the Brooklyn Law School in New York. Allard has worked as the chair of the ABA Standing Committee on the Law Library of Congress, as the chair of its Communications Committee, as a member of the ABA Government Relations Committee, and as a member of its Task Force on Lobbying Reform.

---

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.

For far too long, legal departments have been considered the slow-moving arm of the business. This presumption is true for many reasons—chief among them the fact that the legal department’s primary role is to balance risk with opportunity. Such responsibility often requires endless hours spent analyzing massive amounts of contract data to forecast potential gains and minimize losses.

But with the advent of generative AI, many processes that slowed down the legal arm of the business can be rapidly accelerated, especially when it comes to an organization’s contract data analysis and management systems. In fact, now that our industry has a much clearer vision of what generative AI can do—and how it can improve contract management workflows—tedious routine tasks that previously took up an exorbitant amount of time can be completed in a matter of minutes. These advancements have major implications for the legal department and its impact on the rest of the organization.

As we begin 2025, three emerging trends point to a future where legal teams will have the insights they need to play an integral role in their organization’s revenue goals. Here’s a look at how these shifts will transform legal work, freeing legal leaders from redundant, time-consuming tasks to focus on big-picture strategies.

1. Modern-day legal teams will be more agile, allowing them to move at the new speed of business

Generative AI has ushered in a new era of contract management strategies. With the right solutions in place, legal teams can become more agile and effective, supercharging productivity in ways that were unimaginable less than two years ago. But before legal teams can take advantage of generative AI solutions that are actually useful versus just being cool, business leaders must be more thoughtful about their AI investments and implementations.

It’s imperative businesses understand and lean into effective data grounding efforts to avoid “garbage in, garbage out” scenarios often associated with the large language models powering today’s more popular generative AI platforms. Data grounding will be a key factor in generative AI’s ability to deliver accurate and high-value outputs within contract management programs. Once teams are able to prioritize their data grounding efforts, tasks that took months to accomplish will be completed in minutes. Generating first drafts, writing clauses based on playbook analysis, searching endlessly for contracts that are often kept in disparate systems—these are just a few use cases where generative AI will drive productivity across legal workflows and processes.

2. Contract data will be recognized as a business-critical asset, unlocking unrealized revenue gains and new levels of growth

Contract data is not only the key to unlocking cost-saving opportunities, it is also one of the largest sources of untapped revenue for organizations that haven’t optimized their contract management programs. From identifying revenue leakage and overspending on vendors to developing more profitable contract provisions and renewal terms, there are a multitude of ways that contract data can drive massive revenue gains. Unfortunately, most CLM platforms fail to provide high-value insights that can move the needle on their organization’s most important goals.

But the tides are turning. Effective enterprise-grade contract AI solutions are changing the game when it comes to how legal teams leverage their contract data. With full visibility into their contracts—along with tools that can automate complex data analysis—forward-thinking legal teams will be able to realize the organization’s contracts as the business-critical asset they are.

Before legal teams can maximize the value of their contract data, it’s imperative that their contract management solutions come equipped with a contract-AI knowledge engine to avoid the “garbage-in, garbage-out” challenges often associated with generative AI tools. It is also important that CLM software includes an AI-powered repository that enables legal teams to expertly organize their contracts and extract key insights from a centralized—and searchable—database. Another key component of an effective contract management platform is ensuring it is not only intuitive, but accessible to stakeholders outside of the legal department, including sales leaders, finance teams, and the procurement department.

3. Enterprise-grade contract AI will allow legal leaders to achieve outcomes that go far beyond the legal department

The introduction of enterprise-grade contract AI technology makes it possible to extend the value of contract data well beyond the legal department. With the right platforms in place, sales, procurement and finance teams will gain access to previously unavailable contract insights that get them closer to their most important goals. Legal teams can turn contract data into revenue drivers, while procurement teams can better manage vendor relationships. Sales can optimize renewal terms within customer contracts and close deals faster, while finance leaders can rely on contract data to identify cost saving opportunities, as well as find—and stop!—revenue leakage.

The reality is now that legal leaders have a more realistic view of generative AI’s capabilities and limitations, they are better positioned to implement processes that maximize the value of their contract data.

One key benefit of the modern-day legal departments will be the ability to create self-service contract management solutions that can be used by business leaders outside of the legal department, including the CFO and head of sales. And that’s the real promise of enterprise-grade contract AI: delivering unhindered access to valuable contract data to the people who can activate it and drive measurable revenue growth.

There’s no question that the future of legal work is undergoing massive shifts. Legal leaders are reconsidering how work gets done and being more intentional about how they integrate generative AI solutions into their workflows. For the teams that are able to capitalize on these shifts—finally able to take full advantage of their contract data—the sky is the limit.

---

Justin Schweisberger leads sales, marketing and strategic partnerships for Pramata, a leading end-to-end contract management platform. In this role, Schweisberger sets the company’s global market positioning and forges Pramata’s relationships with some of the world’s top brands.

---

Mind Your Business is a series of columns written by lawyers, legal professionals and others within the legal industry. The purpose of these columns is to offer practical guidance for attorneys on how to run their practices, provide information about the latest trends in legal technology and how it can help lawyers work more efficiently, and strategies for building a thriving business.

---

Interested in contributing a column? Send a query to [email protected].

---

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