Early Mediation: Is Your Case a Likely Candidate?
Philip E. Cook, Esq.
This LinkedIn Feature Made Me Rethink the Content I Post
Wayne Pollock
What Gen Z Lawyers Want in 2025
Kate Bell
Law Firm of the Month
SAN DIEGO
Law Practice Succession Planning: The Importance of Staying in Control
Kimberly R. McGhee
10 Critical Things You Need to Know About GEO … NOW! Joe Giovannoli
Mark Cuban Is Right: Make Machines Work for You Ryan McKeen
Dunn DeSantis Walt & Kendrick, LLP
San Diego
From Rivals to Record-Setters: Collaboration with Former Foes at Stanford And Associates Resulted in California’s Largest-Ever Legal Malpractice Recovery
• 2025 – Jason obtained a complete defense arbitration award for his client in a contract dispute wherein the alleged damages were in excess of $1 million.
• 2025 – Mike obtained a final arbitration award in excess of $13 million for his client, an employee of a large public company.
• 2024 – Jason obtained a jury verdict of $550,000 for his client, an Uber driver assaulted by a passenger.
• 2021 – Mike and Jason obtained a $22 million settlement for clients defrauded in a local Ponzi scheme.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Joe Giovannoli
Wayne Pollock
Philip E. Cook, Esq.
Gen Z lawyers—born between 1997 and 2012—are stepping into the profession with expectations that are rewriting the rules of law firm life. They want flexible schedules, meaningful mental health support, and technology that reduces busywork instead of creating it. They ask direct questions about lawyer work-life balance and often choose smaller firms with strong cultures over BigLaw positions. With the oldest Gen Z lawyers now in their late 20s, this generation comprises nearly 30% of the global population, and their influence on the legal industry is already reshaping traditional practices. For firms, this means culture, technology, and growth opportunities will increasingly determine who wins the talent war in the years ahead. In this post, we’ll explore what matters most to Gen Z lawyers, how they’re redefining career success, and what firms can do to stay competitive.
Who Are Gen Z Lawyers?
Gen Z attorneys are typically aged 25 to 28 as they enter the legal profession, representing the oldest members of a generation born between 1997 and 2012. As digital natives who grew up with smartphones, social media, and instant access to information, they think, learn, and work differently than previous generations. They expect genuine work-life balance, mental-health support, and modern legal technology that helps them work smarter. And they won’t hesitate to leave firms that don’t offer the right culture, flexibility, or growth opportunities.
What Sets Gen Z Lawyers Apart?
Understanding what drives Gen Z as lawyers requires looking beyond surface-level preferences to their core values and expectations. Here’s what firms need to understand about this generation.
• They expect technology to help them work smarter. Legal practice management systems and mobile apps that provide effortless access to case and client information from anywhere are now expectations for these digital natives.
What Gen Z Lawyers Want in 2025
by Kate Bell
They reject endless email chains, don’t understand why paper-based documents still exist, and prefer streamlined communication, seeking legal workflow automation that eliminates manual processes.
• Purpose matters more than prestige. Traditional markers like BigLaw names and corner offices carry less weight than meaningful work. Deloitte’s latest Global Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that 89% consider a sense of purpose essential to job satisfaction and well-being. Many will even accept lower pay for work that aligns with their values and offers a stronger sense of long-term career fulfillment.
• Boundaries aren’t negotiable. These young lawyers set clear limits on their availability because they’ve witnessed the burnout that comes without them. They deliver high-quality work during business hours while protecting personal time so they can recharge and stay effective long-term.
• They need feedback to grow. Having grown up with instant feedback in every other area of life, they expect the same at work. They want regular check-ins, clear expectations, and immediate recognition for good work. This constant feedback loop accelerates their development and helps firms spot and fix issues early on.
More than generational quirks, these are shifts in workplace expectations that affect law firms every day. Firms that embrace these expectations will attract and retain top talent, while those that ignore them risk losing the lawyers who will define the next decade of practice.
Gen Z Expectations vs. Traditional Legal Norms
The tension between old and new approaches creates daily friction for legal professionals. In many BigLaw firms, you’ll often witness a familiar scene: seasoned partners who believe associates need to “pay their dues” working alongside 26-yearolds who are adamant the system needs to change.
It’s a clash between two completely different ways of thinking about legal work. Here’s where the expectations of Gen Z lawyers collide with traditional legal norms:
• Billable hours vs. quality of output. Gen Z lawyers grew up in a world where technology improves efficiency, so a compensation model that’s based purely on time spent feels backward to them. Meanwhile, many partners who built successful careers under the billable hour model consider it indispensable to law firm profitability.
• Hierarchy vs. collaboration. Traditional firms operate on strict chains of command where junior associates wait years before their opinions carry weight. Gen Z lawyers, by contrast, are accustomed to flat organizational structures and open communication. When they spot inefficiencies or have innovative ideas, they expect to be heard.
• Linear careers vs. flexible paths. The traditional model assumes everyone wants to make partner. But Gen Z lawyers often have more fluid career goals. Remarkably, only 6% say their primary career goal is reaching senior leadership. Some plan to go in-house after gaining experience. Others want to start their own practices or take sabbaticals for personal projects.
• Face time vs. results. Partners who came up in an era where being seen in the office equaled dedication now manage associates who can work effectively from anywhere. Gen Z lawyers judge performance based on output and results, not hours logged at a desk.
These differences create natural tension, but they also raise important questions about how the legal profession operates. Firms that thoughtfully examine whether current practices serve everyone well—while preserving what works about traditional practice—will gain an edge in attracting and retaining exceptional talent.
Law Firm Challenges In Attracting and Retaining Gen Z
Firms face significant challenges in retaining emerging Gen Zs, and these problems stem from fundamental misunderstandings about what young lawyers actually need. With up to 50% of Gen Z workers reportedly disengaged from their jobs, law firms can’t afford to ignore these barriers.
Treating Basics Like Perks
One of the most significant disconnects occurs when firms continue to treat flexibility and work-life balance as optional perks instead of basic requirements. Gen
Z lawyers expect the ability to work from home a few days a week, set their own schedules when possible, and manage personal commitments independently.
When firms present these as “extra” benefits, it sends the message that they don’t truly understand how legal work can be done effectively today. Korn Ferry research even shows that 40% of Gen Z associates begin job searching within two years, often citing culture and flexibility concerns.
Mentorship That Doesn’t Actually Mentor
Gen Z wants real guidance and structured professional development, not just someone who assigns work and disappears. They expect mentors who understand what new lawyers need to succeed and help them get there. The traditional “figure it out yourself” approach leaves them feeling abandoned and undervalued.
The numbers reveal this gap clearly. According to Deloitte, 50% of Gen Zs want managers who teach and mentor them, but only 36% say this actually happens. That disconnect between expectation and reality drives many talented young lawyers to look for opportunities elsewhere.
Technology That Works Against Them
Outdated systems frustrate young lawyers daily in ways that directly impact their ability to do good work. When they have to use three different platforms to complete one task, or when basic processes take hours instead of minutes, they start questioning whether the firm is serious about efficiency. Over time, these tech frustrations can chip away at engagement, productivity, and even loyalty.
Career Paths That Assume Everyone Wants The Same Thing
The traditional 8-10-year partnership track can feel constraining for lawyers who might want to pivot, take a sabbatical, or explore completely different goals. Gen Z expects firms to offer flexibility and support for diverse career paths, rather than funneling everyone into a one-sizefits-all trajectory.
Recommendations: How Law Firms Can Adapt
Smart firms are already making changes that reflect the preferences of Gen Z lawyers. By adopting the following six strategies, your firm can create a workplace that attracts, retains, and empowers talent at every level.
1. Make flexibility the default. Gen Z lawyers value the ability to work where and when they can be most productive. Instead of treating remote work or flexible
schedules as special privileges, make them standard practice. Focus on results and outcomes rather than hours logged or physical presence. Cloud-based practice management platforms make this possible, letting teams collaborate seamlessly whether they’re in the office, at home, or in court.
2. Build mentorship programs that develop talent. Gen Z wants legal mentors who actively guide them, teach practical skills, and sponsor their growth. Provide mentors with dedicated time and opportunities for meaningful interaction. Beyond mentorship, Gen Z lawyers benefit from structured learning opportunities and ongoing legal education that keeps pace with their career growth.
3. Modernize your tech stack. Outdated systems slow down work and create frustration. Invest in integrated technology that simplifies workflows instead of complicating them. The top legal software consolidates case management, time tracking, billing, and client communication into one centralized place. The result? Less time wrestling with systems and more time practicing law effectively—a win for associates and partners alike.
4. Transform DEI from policy to practice. Gen Z can spot performative diversity a mile away. Inclusive policies alone aren’t enough. They need to be reflected in who’s hired, promoted, and placed in leadership. Show authentic commitment through measurable actions, like diverse leadership pipelines, fair promotion practices, and active accountability. When lawyers see real representation and inclusion in action, it builds trust, engagement, and a stronger sense of belonging.
5. Measure what matters. Billable hours alone don’t capture what makes a lawyer successful. Reward lawyers who improve processes, take smarter approaches, or deliver exceptional results, not just those who work the longest hours. Modern legal technology makes this easy by supporting a wide range of alternative billing arrangements, like flat fees or subscription-based billing options.
6. Give them meaningful work from day one. Young lawyers don’t want to spend years on endless document review or routine research. Instead, offer substantive projects, real client interaction, and genuine responsibility early on. With legal AI increasingly automating routine tasks traditionally assigned to junior staff, firms can now offer more substantive work to new associates from the beginning.
Research and Surveys of Gen Z Voices
Sometimes, the best way to understand a generation is to hear from them directly. Recent research and surveys reveal telling insights about what Gen Z lawyers want and what’s driving them away from traditional firms.
• 52% of Gen Z associates are willing to trade part of their salary for reduced billable hours, with women showing stronger preferences for this trade-off.
• 39% of Gen Z associates disagree or strongly disagree that associates at their firm were racially diverse.
• More than one in four junior associates disagreed or strongly disagreed that their firms prioritize pro bono work (27%) or value social justice and responsibility (27%).
• 68% of young lawyers experience stress and anxiety due to student loan debt, with 67% feeling financial stress overall.
• 74% of Gen Z believe generative AI will impact the way they work within the next year.
• 6% of Gen Zs say their primary career goal is to reach a senior leadership position.
• Of the 70% of Gen Z who said they would pursue employment at a law firm, just 39% said they would like to work for an Am Law 200 firm.
• As much as 50% of Gen Z workers are reportedly disengaged from their jobs.
The Final Word On Gen Z Lawyers
Gen Z lawyers are embracing legal tech to work smarter, championing flexible and forward-thinking business models, and reimagining the way they connect with colleagues and clients. As they move into leadership roles over the coming decade, their values will reshape everything from firm culture to client service delivery models.
The firms that thrive will be those that embrace integrated practice management technology and provide the modern legal tools that help lawyers work more effectively. More importantly, they’ll recognize that Gen Z’s approach isn’t simply different. It can also be better, creating more sustainable, efficient, and fulfilling legal careers for everyone. n
Kate Bell currently serves as an Affinity Partnerships Manager, where she leverages her background in law firm management and consulting to forge strategic alliances and collaborations. Her expertise lies in fostering partnerships that drive innovation and elevate the legal profession. Learn more at www.irglobal.com.
We've
TRUSTED. RESPECTED. PROVEN.
Robert F. Vaage has spent nearly four decades fighting for justice in the courtroom. Founder of Vaage Law, he has tried more than 50 jury trials to verdict, represented patients in 30+ Kaiser arbitrations, and secured some of the largest awards in San Diego history, including:
$25,638,058 Medical Malpractice Award Against Kaiser
$15,000,000 Reheat Steam Pipe Fails
$13,000,000 Wrongful Death in an Auto Collision Case
$12,617,674 Brain Injuries from Head Trauma and Metabolic Insult
$8,999,998 Delay in Diagnosis of Gastric Bypass Complication
$3,550,000 Jury Verdict in a Pediatric Dental Negligence Case
With a national reputation for integrity, precision, and results, Robert Vaage is one of the youngest attorneys ever admitted to the American Board of Trial Advocates.
Founder, Robert F. Vaage
Let’s cut to the chase: AI-powered search has fundamentally changed the game, and if you’re still optimizing like it’s 2022, you’re already behind. Unlike traditional SEO where firms have spent decades building dominance, GEO is only 18 months old. Nobody owns this space yet. Translation: You still have time to stake your claim.
Here are ten critical insights every law firm needs to understand about Generative Engine Optimization—starting yesterday.
1. Generative Engine Optimization’s Golden Rule: Answer First, Elaborate Later
ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google’s AI Overviews consume content differently. They want the answer in the first two sentences, then the supporting detail. Think of it like Business Insider‘s approach—bullets up top, depth below. Your readers can scroll if they want more, but AI tools need that immediate answer to cite you as a source.
Action item: Audit your top 10 practice area pages. Does each one answer the core question “what do we do?” within the first two sentences? If not, restructure immediately.
2. Structured Data Is Your Generative Engine Optimization Best Friend
If you’ve been investing thoughtfully in SEO for the past 5-10 years, congratulations—you don’t need to reinvent the wheel. But you do need to get obsessive about structured data. LLMs are crawling sites and making recommendations based on how well they can parse your structured data. If yours is incomplete or messy, you’re invisible.
Action item: Review your site’s schema markup, metadata for images, heading hierarchies—this is how LLMs read and index your site. It’s not sexy work, but it’s the foundation that determines whether AI tools can even find your content, let alone recommend it.
3. Mentions Matter Now (Even Without Links)
Here’s something that would’ve sounded crazy three years ago: unlinked mentions now carry weight.
Previously, if a publication mentioned your firm without
10 Critical Things You Need to Know About Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) ...
NOW!
by Joe Giovannoli
including a hyperlink or used a “nofollow” tag, SEO experts dismissed it as worthless. AI has changed that equation. When authoritative industry publications mention your firm—even without links—AI tools recognize this as a trust signal.
Action item: Review your firm’s brand presence and digital PR strategy. Generic firm names create attribution problems. If there are multiple firms with similar names, AI can get confused about which firm deserves credit.
4. Attribution Beats Anonymity Every Single Time
Please, for Pete’s sake, attribute content to individual attorneys. I get it—some managing partners prefer the institutional voice. But when someone asks ChatGPT or Perplexity “Who is the best patent litigation attorney in New York City?”, these tools provide a list of individual attorneys first, then firms second.
The firm didn’t write the article. An attorney or attorneys at your firm wrote it, reviewed it, or at minimum put their expertise behind it. That person is your expert. Claim it. Own it. Build their authority.
What happens when attorneys leave? Have clear employment agreements stating all work product belongs to the firm. When someone departs, assign their content to another attorney who reviews and refreshes it. This is also an excellent opportunity to audit which pages still drive traffic and which can be retired.
5. Industry-Specific PR Trumps Vanity Publications for Generative Engine Visibility
Stop chasing the Wall Street Journal if you’re an intellectual property firm. Start chasing IP-focused publications that AI tools recognize as authoritative in your specific domain. Quotes in the WSJ or NYT? Still great, of course, but they’re not what will get you found in AI search.
There’s a crucial distinction here between traditional PR (building mainstream brand recognition) and digital PR (building your online reputation). Both matter, but for GEO purposes, appearing in niche, authoritative industry publications carries more weight than generic mainstream coverage.
Why? Because when AI tools evaluate expertise, they look for signals from sources they recognize as authoritative within that
specific practice area. A mention in an IP industry publication signals subject matter expertise more clearly than a quote in a general business publication.
Action item: Again, this is where having a strong Digital PR Strategy comes in. Building authority online is not the same as building top-of-funnel brand awareness through national publications. If you don’t have a digital PR strategy, get one.
6. Zero-Click Searches Are the New Normal (And That’s Okay)
Yes, you probably lost 10-30% of your site traffic in the last nine months. Yes, AI-powered answers mean people don’t always click through to your site. But here’s what you’re probably not tracking: branded search is skyrocketing.
People are using ChatGPT or Perplexity to get a list of recommended firms, then typing those firm names directly into Google. This means:
• More branded search traffic
• Higher-intent visitors
• Better conversion rates
Action item: Implement proper intake processes. Leverage a marketing platform like HubSpot to track multi-touch attribution. Ask every new client “How did you find us?” You’d be shocked how many are discovering firms through AI tools. If you’re not tracking this, you’re missing massive attribution insights that should inform your entire strategy.
7. Technology Investments Should Make Your Team More Efficient First
With the avalanche of AI marketing tools flooding your inbox, here’s my hierarchy for where to invest:
First: Technology that makes your marketing team more effective and efficient at their jobs. AI tools for content creation, research, competitive analysis, and workflow optimization.
Second: A strategic decision about whether your firm will compete for non-branded search traffic or focus on validation (ensuring you look authoritative when people research you after getting a referral).
Third: Website health and user experience. If your site hasn’t been a priority until now, it needs to become one. Period.
Bonus fourth: A robust CRM (I’m looking at you, HubSpot skeptics). Understanding how prospects interact with your content and site is no longer optional.
8. Understand the Three Ways People Actually Use AI Search
Not all AI searches are created equal. Understanding user intent helps you position content strategically:
• Quick answer mode: Someone needs fast information they’d previously get from calling an attorney or colleague. They ask ChatGPT and move on. Savvy users check the sources—which means you want to be cited. This is why answering questions in those first two sentences matters so much.
• Search engine alternative: Users treating AI tools like Google, asking them to “syndicate information and come back to me.” While ChatGPT explicitly said they’re not trying to be a search engine, people use them this way regardless. These tools pull from traditional search engines, so your SEO fundamentals still matter.
• Validation tool: This is the big one. Someone got a referral or saw your firm name somewhere. Now they’re asking ChatGPT or Perplexity: “Is this firm specifically known for the challenge I’m facing?” If AI can’t confirm your expertise openly, it hedges: “While they probably could handle this based on their website, this is what they’re known for.”
Action item: You need content that serves all three use cases. Create quick, citable answers for the first group. Comprehensive topic coverage for the second. And clear, demonstrable expertise markers for the third.
9. Master These Technical Fundamentals (They’re Not Optional)
While everyone’s obsessing over AI prompts and content strategy, the boring technical stuff is quietly determining who wins:
• The two-click rule: Users should reach any page on your site within two clicks. If they land on your homepage and want to contact your employment law practice, that shouldn’t require navigating through three dropdown menus and a practice area index page.
• Strong CTAs with proper structure: Make it stupidly easy for people to do what you want them to do. And for clickable elements, follow best practices. Phone numbers need proper “tel:” formatting. Contact forms should be accessible from every page. Don’t make people hunt.
• Page speed and core web vitals: Google didn’t introduce these metrics for fun. Fast-loading sites with good user experience signal quality to both search engines and AI tools. High bounce rates from slow loading? You’re telling algorithms your content isn’t worth waiting for.
• Experience wins everything: There’s a reason Google added that extra “E” to E-A-T (making it E-E-A-T: Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). They put “Experience” first deliberately. User experience isn’t a niceto-have—it’s the foundation everything else builds on.
10. Structure Your Content Like You’re Building a Reference Library
Long-form content still matters, but structure matters more. Here’s your blueprint:
• 5-7 strategic subheadings: Each article should address one main topic with 5-7 related subtopics. These aren’t random— they’re distinct questions people actually search for. Each subheading should be a question someone asks.
• Answer each subquestion immediately: Just like your main topic, every subsection should answer its question in the opening sentence or two, then elaborate. This allows AI to extract exactly what it needs and snap users to the relevant section.
• Strategic internal linking: Citations and hyperlinks in your first two paragraphs carry the most weight. Link to authoritative sources (government sites, bar associations, subject matter experts—not competing firms). Create a “spiderweb” of internal links connecting related content. This strengthens your entire site’s authority.
• Bullet points for key facts: AI tools love scannable content. Use bullets to highlight critical information, key points, and takeaways. This makes your content easier for both humans and LLMs to parse.
• Plain language always: Write so a smart non-lawyer can understand it. AI tools need to translate your content for end users. If you’re drowning in legalese, you’re making their job harder—and they’ll cite someone else instead.
• Wide breadth on each topic: Don’t just answer the narrow question. Provide comprehensive coverage that demonstrates expertise. While a user might only need one section, AI evaluates the full article to determine if you’re truly an authority worth citing
The Bottom Line
Generative Engine Optimization isn’t some distant future concern—it’s the present reality. Your 90-year-old grandmother is asking ChatGPT questions. The least tech-savvy person you know is using Google’s AI mode nine times a day.
The firms that win in this new landscape won’t necessarily be the biggest or oldest. They’ll be the ones that understood the shift early, structured their content properly, built individual attorney authority, and tracked the right metrics.
The question isn’t whether to invest in GEO. The question is whether you’ll do it now while the playing field is still relatively level, or wait until your competitors have already staked their claim.
Your move.
Want to understand how your firm currently shows up in AIpowered search results? Try searching for your practice areas on ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google’s AI mode. The results might surprise you—or motivate you to act. n
Joe Giovannoli is the Founder & CEO of 9Sail, a digital marketing firm he launched in 2015 to deliver data-driven SEO, PPC, digital PR, and content services tailored for law firms. Learn more at www.9Sail.com.
Former Prosecutor, National TV Legal Analyst and Award-Winning Trial Attorney
CRIMINAL DEFENSE
DUI
Domestic Violence
Assault and Battery
Sexual Harassment - Plaintiff
Sexual Assault - Plaintiff
Murder AWARDS
• Super Lawyers – 2025
• U.S. News & World Report – Best Lawyers
• Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rated Lawyer
• The Nation’s Top 1% – National Association of Distinguished Counsel
• The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 Trial Lawyers
• Avvo.com Client’s Choice Award
• Avvo.com rating of 10 out of 10 as a top attorney practicing criminal defense based upon client reviews and peer endorsements
This LinkedIn Feature Made Me Rethink the Content I Post
by Wayne Pollock
Monitoring and analyzing what people with big followings post on LinkedIn can elevate your LinkedIn game.
Receiving notifications when certain people post on LinkedIn has changed the way I create content on the platform for the better, and can likely help you do the same.(You can activate this feature by clicking the yellow bell on the upper righthand corner of someone’s profile.) Those “certain people” I’m referring to are regular people with relatively large LinkedIn followings. They’re not celebrities, business leaders, or other A-listers. I’m talking about people with generally between 7,500 and 20,000 followers.
I want to see what they’re posting, when they post, how often they post, and how their posts do so that I can improve the quality of my posts and their reach.
Remember, LinkedIn’s algorithm doesn’t serve every one of your posts to every one of your connections or followers. So, to see every post someone publishes, you’ll need to click the yellow bell on their profile so you’ll know when they’ve posted something.
Here are the four ways that tracking these people’s posts has helped me improve my LinkedIn content game—and could help you improve yours.
The Opportunity To Reverse Engineer
By seeing what these people say each time they post, I can try to reverse-engineer their content.
For their posts that received a fair amount of engagement, I can try to uncover what they did that seemed to win people over and got them to like, comment on, or share the post. On the other hand, for their posts that underperformed, I can try to identify what went wrong. Why didn’t these posts connect with their audience? Are there changes they could have made to a post that might have improved its performance?
Substantive Inspiration
Reviewing these individuals’ posts gives me inspiration for my posts from a substantive perspective.
If there are topics that tend to perform well in their posts that I feel comfortable discussing, I can work those topics into my posts. By getting notified whenever they post, I can see the full range of topics they cover in their posts. Do they often talk about themselves, such as discussing successes, failures, their family life, etc.? Do they frequently discuss best practices related to their work? Do they often talk about current events, pop culture, or other similarly timely topics?
Structural Inspiration
Aside from substance, reviewing these people’s posts gives me inspiration for my posts from a structural perspective.
• Do they often write text-only posts?
• Do they ever post videos?
• Are they posting carousels?
• When they post photos, do they post cringe glamour selfies? Are they posting photos of their kids?
• I’d also consider the “when” and the frequency of their posts to fall into this category.
• Do they tend to post at the same time every day? What time is that?
• How frequently do they post? Do they post more than once a day?
Though I don’t do this personally, you could keep detailed statistics regarding the post types and times of the people whose posts you’re tracking and deduce, or use AI to help you deduce, patterns in their post type, time, and frequency.
The Knowledge That Not Every Post Is Going To Be A Winner
Perhaps most importantly, reviewing these individuals’ posts lets me see that not every post they produce is a home
run. Their large following does not guarantee a ton of likes, comments, and shares on each of their posts. Yes, even people with large followings publish duds.
It’s also a good reminder that you only tend to see people’s best posts because of LinkedIn’s algorithm. The algorithm tends to serve up posts that receive a fair amount of interactions soon after they were published. Thus, we rarely see posts that fall flat.
But when you or I choose to be notified about someone’s posts, we get to see those duds. We see that everyone, including people with large followings, struggles to consistently produce top-notch and/or viral LinkedIn content.
This makes me feel better—and may also make you feel better. These people are only humans. They don’t have a cheat code for LinkedIn success. Yet, they’ve grown their social media followings, and you and I can too.
Review Posts, Improve Your LinkedIn Game
The one wrinkle here is that you’ll need to set aside time to analyze the posts you’re tracking. That’s a good reason to limit the number of people you choose to receive notifications about. This way, you can keep the number of posts you need to review to a manageable number. I’ve been reviewing posts daily, but a weekly review could also work, provided you have some time on a weekend to devote to reviewing these posts.
When you analyze these posts, actually analyze them. Take notes. Reverse engineer them. See what lessons you can learn from them. And, see if you can draw inspiration from the substance and structure of the posts. You could experiment with running the posts through AI and seeing if it can find patterns or themes.
However, you’ll need to devote time to actually reading and reflecting on these posts. If you breeze through them when working your way through notifications and don’t think more about them, you’re not going to get value from this exercise.
But if you thoughtfully analyze these posts and learn something from them, there’s a good chance those lessons will help you produce better content on LinkedIn.
At the very least, you’ll walk away feeling better that even people with large LinkedIn followings do not always hit every post out of the park. n
Wayne Pollock is the founder of the Law Firm Editorial Service. The Law Firm Editorial Service sets free the knowledge and wisdom trapped inside Big Law and boutique law firm partners by collaborating with them to strategize and ethically ghostwrite book-of-business-building marketing and business development content. Learn more at: www.lawfirmeditorialservice.com
it comes to court reporting, video and litigation services, Peterson delivers real reporters, real experience, and real service. Day by day, year by year, case by case, we’ve been setting the high bar for integrity, technology and reach for over 35 years.
From Rivals to Record-Setters
Once Legal Foes, These Two Established Firms Teamed Up to Secure California’s Largest Malpractice Recovery
by Dan Baldwin
Once adversaries in the courtroom, Dunn DeSantis Walt & Kendrick and Stanford And Associates have forged a powerhouse alliance—redefining legal malpractice litigation and securing a historic $125+ million settlement.
From Adversaries to Allies
For decades, the attorneys at Dunn DeSantis Walt & Kendrick (DDWK) and Stanford And Associates faced each other across courtrooms in some of California’s most contentious legal malpractice cases. One firm became known for its broad litigation firepower, including the defense of attorneys. The other built a near-mythic name for holding them accountable. In the insular world of legal malpractice litigation, few rivalries ran deeper than this one. Or had more mutual respect.
But in a recent, unexpected twist, the two San Diego-based firms—longtime adversaries—have joined forces. And the result? One of the most powerful legal collaborations in California, marked by a groundbreaking $125+ million settlement over the summer, which now stands as the largest legal malpractice recovery in state history.
“This unique partnership allows us to combine decades of experience in this important niche practice area," says David Cardone, founding partner at DDWK. “Together, we’re able to pursue claims with insight that very few firms can offer because we’ve lived on both sides of the table.”
Dan Stanford, founder of Stanford And Associates and widely regarded as one of the most seasoned legal malpractice litigators in the country, echoes the sentiment: “The collective expertise of the two firms now presents an unrivaled team. I don’t believe there’s another group in California, or the country, better equipped to handle highstakes malpractice litigation.”
It’s a story of mutual respect forged through years of combat. Now, that intensity is being channeled in one direction: securing justice for clients wronged by the very legal professionals who were responsible to protect them.
Adrienne Miller, Dan Stanford, David Cardone, Adam Yarbrough and Meg Rogers
Legendary Lineage: The Firms Behind the
Names
The origins of DDWK trace back to the 1960s, when J. Lawrence Irving, who would later become a federal judge, and several of his colleagues left a prominent San Diego law firm to forge their own path. Over generations, that legacy evolved into the formidable firm known today as Dunn DeSantis Walt & Kendrick. With a legal team that includes partners and staff who've been with the firm for decades, DDWK has cultivated a deep bench of courtroom-tested professionals known for litigating high stakes matters, including the defense of law firms.
Along with Cardone, the DDWK team includes standout attorneys Kevin DeSantis, Jim McFaul, Brad Lebow, and Adam Yarbrough—each of whom brings years of experience litigating legal malpractice claims. DeSantis, like Dan Stanford, is one of California’s first attorneys to be recognized by the State Bar as a certified specialist in Legal Malpractice Law. Their collective defense background adds great depth to the alliance.
By contrast, Stanford And Associates built its reputation on the other side of the aisle. Led by Dan Stanford, a longtime veteran of legal malpractice litigation, the firm has filed more claims against attorneys and law firms than any other in California. Stanford has long been the go-to name for those seeking to hold negligent attorneys accountable—an almost singular force in this highly specialized area of law.
The irony is rich: DDWK, long known for its successes in the defense of professional liability cases, now finds itself partnering with one of the attorneys it once faced off against most frequently.
“Having fought them for decades, I knew just how good they were,” Stanford says of DDWK. “I wanted to be in the foxhole with them—not against them.”
That combination—Stanford’s unmatched experience prosecuting malpractice claims and DDWK’s intricate understanding of defense tactics—has resulted in what many in this specialized legal community, including fellow practitioners and mediators, see as a dream team.
The Turning Point: A Case, a Dinner, and a Decision
The seeds of the alliance were planted in 2020, when Cardone approached Stanford about teaming up on a commercial dispute involving an AmLaw 100 firm. The case required the pursuit of malpractice claims, and Stanford brought a plaintiffside expertise that complemented DDWK’s litigation chops. The collaboration proved successful and more importantly, seamless. The die was cast. Cardone and Stanford began to undertake more cases together.
But the real turning point came in late 2023, after Cardone and Yarbrough secured one of the largest jury verdicts of the year. Stanford took Cardone out to dinner to celebrate. Over that meal, he made a proposal that would change the trajectory
Founding Partners: David D. Cardone, Kevin V. DeSantis and James A. McFaul
of both firms: why not form a deeper, more strategic alliance?
“After that win, I realized something,” Stanford recalls. “This wasn’t just a good team; it was the right team. We shared the same values, the same obsession with detail, the same willingness to fight hard and smart. And deliver results. The time was right to formalize what we had started.”
A decision was made to unite under a shared mission: take on only a small number of high-value, high-stakes malpractice cases, and pursue them with full force.
To streamline collaboration and build day-to-day synergy, Stanford physically moved into DDWK’s downtown San Diego office in 2024. “Being in the same office lets us work faster, think bigger, and be more responsive,” he says. “It also gives me a chance to share lessons with their younger attorneys, something I’m enthusiastic about, and proud to do.”
Record Breakers: Inside the $125M Milestone
Their biggest case to date came earlier this year when the two firms secured what appears to be California’s largest legal malpractice settlement ever: a staggering $125+ million prelitigation resolution.
The case was complex, high-stakes, and emotionally charged. The client had suffered catastrophic losses due to egregious missteps by one of the nation’s most prominent firms. The client’s leadership didn’t want just any lawyers—
they wanted a team that could combine insider knowledge, litigation firepower, and demonstrated courtroom success.
“They hired us specifically because of this collaboration,” Stanford explains. “They said, ‘We wouldn’t have hired either of you alone. But together, we believe you can win.’ That was powerful.”
For six months, the team worked around the clock to build a nine-figure case. They prepared a litigation-ready complaint, assembled a blue-ribbon panel of expert witnesses, and applied unrelenting pressure to the defendant firm and its insurers. Their strategy: prepare so thoroughly for trial that the only logical outcome was settlement.
“We prepared for war and got peace,” Yarbrough says. “But only because we built a nuclear case.”
The client, who had expected years of drawn-out litigation, was stunned and thrilled when the case resolved early. “This case set a new standard, not just for results, but for what collaboration at the highest level can really accomplish,” Stanford adds.
The Alliance in Action: What Comes Next
Fresh off the record-breaking win, the team has wasted no time in tackling a new slate of high-stakes claims.
One current case involves a young man who tragically lost his arm in a 2020 boating accident on the Colorado River. His original attorneys, from a high-profile Los Angeles-based
Adam Yarbrough, David Cardone, Brad Lebow
personal injury firm, initially estimated the claim was worth in excess of $50 million. But then they settled the case for a mere $50,000—believing no further recovery was possible.
DDWK and Stanford And Associates disagreed. They identified additional parties and uncovered avenues for substantial recovery.
“Being able to help someone who’s been hurt twice—once by the accident, and again by his own legal team—is what drives us,” says Yarbrough. “These cases aren’t just about dollars. They’re also about dignity.”
Another case centers on an Orange County investment advisor who was encouraged by his attorneys to settle with the SEC without being warned that the deal would effectively shutter a large part of his business. The result? Tens of millions in lost revenue, and a steep decline in the size of his firm.
“Cases like this are our bread and butter,” says Cardone. “High-value losses. High-level legal missteps. We specialize in navigating the complexities of the underlying cases and forging an effective path forward.”
And they don’t shy away from trial. While many firms hope to settle, DDWK and Stanford make it clear: they’re always ready for a jury. “Some cases demand a courtroom,” Stanford says. “And we look forward to putting justice in the hands of jurors.”
Redefining a Niche: A New Standard for Prosecuting Malpractice Claims
With more than 150 years of combined legal malpractice experience between them, DDWK and Stanford And Associates
are setting a new standard—not just in results, but in reputation. Their alliance is attracting the attention of both clients and peers, particularly among attorneys who refer sensitive or highprofile malpractice matters to firms they trust.
“We’re getting calls from across the state,” Stanford says. “People know we’ve been on both sides of these cases. They know we’ve fought the biggest firms in the country and won. We’re based here in San Diego, but our practice takes us all over California.”
Inside DDWK’s offices, the atmosphere is more than collaborative. It’s cohesive. Shared offices, daily strategy meetings, and mutual mentoring have created a culture that feels more like one firm than two.
“This isn’t a temporary co-counsel relationship,” says Cardone. “This is a long-term alliance built on trust, experience, and a shared commitment to our clients.”
And as they look to the future, both firms remain selective. They take only the cases they believe in, because that’s what allows them to go all in.
“Unlikely allies? Sure,” Stanford says with his familiar, wry smile. “But that’s what makes our victories even sweeter.” n
Contact Dunn DeSantis Walt & Kendrick, LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2620 San Diego, CA 92101
858-566-5585 www.ddwklaw.com
© Bauman Photographers
The Dunn DeSantis Walt & Kendrick Team
Early Mediation: Is Your Case a Likely Candidate?
by Philip E. Cook, Esq.
“For everything there is a season, and a time for every activity under the heaven.”
Many cases can benefit from early mediation. Parties often reject the notion of early mediation because they believe they need more information to resolve the dispute. In some cases, more information is necessary. In other cases, however, parties can assess litigation outcomes—based upon what they know, can reasonably anticipate and are willing to exchange in connection with the mediation—and meaningfully value the case without further litigation.
Benefits of Early Mediation
It can set the tone. Early mediation can help set a productive tone for the litigation. Early in my career, a senior attorney instructed me never to bring up settlement with the other side, believing it would be taken as a sign of weakness. When I later became responsible for cases, I began to raise settlement options early, expressing this premise: “We are on two parallel tracks, one to settle the case, one to try it.” And I proposed not letting one interfere with the other.
It lets you learn about the case. Whether representing plaintiffs or defendants, busy litigation counsel tend to advance their preparation of a case for the next deadline. In some firms, lead counsel may rely upon others initially to analyze and prepare a case. In these instances, early mediation can be a catalyst to prompt a more comprehensive and candid consideration of a party’s claims or defenses. Exchanged briefs may clarify or provide additional information about the other side’s position. And early mediation offers an opportunity to learn about the opposing party and their counsel.
It gives you a chance to settle the case. The benefits of an early resolution can be significant. Of course, ongoing litigation efforts cease and resources are preserved. Removing the stress (or at least the distraction) of a case allows parties to move on and turn their attention to other matters. An early mediation provides a forum for parties with intensely personal connections to a dispute to “have their day in court” sooner rather than later. For a defendant, risk becomes certain. And for a plaintiff, funds become available immediately.
It provides information. Without settlement, one primary value of early mediation is information—about both the other side’s case and yours. Early mediation is an opportunity to develop your narrative and analyze how it will play out with a
competing narrative. It requires a focus on damages and clarity about the range of potential recovery or risk. It may prompt you to revisit your expectations about case outcome (and thus case value)—whether because of new information or perhaps a mediator’s reaction to your case.
When you properly prepare, early mediation should prompt parties and their counsel to consider litigation objectives— both in terms of what a litigant wants from the case and the associated costs (whether personal or financial). For a party funding their own legal expenses, a litigation budget delivered in advance of mediation will allow the party and their counsel to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of further litigation.
Finally, early mediation—when approached with transparency, with reciprocity and in good faith—can create a path forward to revisit settlement as the litigation progresses.
Downsides of Early Mediation
It can be frustrating. A mediation that does not result in settlement often results in frustration or annoyance, usually directed at the other side:
• “This was just a waste of time and money.”
• “They just wanted free discovery.”
• “They didn’t come here in good faith.”
Some frustration when early mediation leaves the parties far apart is certainly understandable. But a disappointing outcome does not negate the value of early mediation, especially when counsel work together to ensure the process is designed to be productive. It can be counterproductive. An early mediation can be proposed to send a message. It may be a defendant who wants to make sure the plaintiff personally understands the strength of the defense—not just plaintiff’s counsel. It may be a plaintiff who wants the defendant and their insurer to know the demand exceeds the deductible or self-insured retention. Or it may be a party that wants to show their resolve, perhaps refusing to negotiate or moving very little, and letting the other side know they intend to try the case in order to obtain a better settlement. In my experience, these tactics rarely have the intended effect; they instead just prolong the process of getting parties back to the table to focus on a reasonable settlement value.
What Kinds of Cases Might Be Suited To Early Mediation?
Those involving ongoing relationships. Early mediation can be crucial where preserving business or family relationships is a priority, despite the dispute. It can also be helpful to preserve a business operation or other asset that provides resources to parties, despite their conflict.
Those involving pre-filing mediation requirements. Some contracts, such as real property leases or purchases, often include a pre-filing mediation requirement. Failing to fulfill a mediation requirement before heading to court can strip a party of the right to recover attorneys’ fees if they prevail. In other instances, breaching this contractual obligation can result in a motion to dismiss or stay pending mediation.
Those for which early case valuation is possible. Early mediation is a good option in any case where the parties can assess litigation outcomes—based upon what they know, can reasonably anticipate and can obtain by right or in connection with the mediation. For instance,
• For early mediation in an intellectual property case, the defendant typically discloses revenue and units sold for accused products, together with financial statements covering the relevant period.
• For early mediation in a class or representative wage and hour case, the parties usually work from a common dataset covering the relevant period of time, including the number of current and former employees involved, the total number of workweeks (in a class action) or total number of wage statements (in a PAGA case) and where relevant company policies, samples of time records or wage statements, and time clock data.
Could early mediation be effective for your case? Consider the following questions:
• What do you know about the potential recovery or risk in the case?
• What more would you like to know about the case to more confidently or accurately assess its value?
• Is the information available by right (e.g., Cal. Labor Code, 1198.5; Cal. Corp. Code, § 1601) or in a voluntary premediation exchange between the parties?
• If not, what sources of information exist besides formal discovery or expert opinions?
• What range of uncertainty exists without that information?
• Can you meaningfully assess the case’s value by analyzing that range of uncertainty instead of waiting for certainty?
• Do you know enough about the case to explain your position, with at least some degree of detail, in an exchanged brief?
Balanced against the cost of litigation, both personal and financial, clients and their lawyers should make sure they are not overlooking an opportunity to mediate early. n
Philip E. “Phil” Cook, Esq. is a mediator, arbitrator, and court-appointed neutral with over 30 years of litigation and dispute resolution experience. He founded Cook Mediation in 2015 after a long trial practice (including two decades at Jones Day) and in 2025 joined JAMS to serve full-time as a neutral across business, class action, IP, employment, insurance, and securities matters. Learn more at https://www.jamsadr.com/cook/.
Mark Cuban doesn’t mince words. When I asked him for advice for my law students at UConn Law School, his response was brutally simple: “Become intimate with all the LLMs. Learn what they can and can’t do. Same with agentic AI.” He’s right. And most lawyers are completely unprepared for what’s coming.
The legal profession spent the last century perfecting human processes. We created elaborate systems for document review, legal research, contract drafting, and case management. We built pyramids of associates doing manual work that partners would review. We charged by the hour for tasks that should take minutes. Now Cuban points to the obvious truth: all those processes are dead weight. The firms that survive will be the ones that eliminate them entirely through automation.
The Process Problem Is Killing Legal Practice
Law firms are process factories. Junior associates spend 2,000 hours a year on document review. Partners waste days editing briefs that could be generated in seconds. Paralegals manage filing systems that should be automated. Clients pay $500 an hour for work that adds no real value.
Cuban nails it: “So much of law is spent on processes.” These processes exist because we’ve always done them, not because they need to exist. They’re the legal equivalent of using horses when cars are available. Every hour spent on process is an hour stolen from actual legal thinking and strategy.
The dirty secret is that most legal work isn’t legal work at all. It’s information processing, pattern matching, and document generation. These are exactly the tasks that LLMs excel at. A properly configured AI can review contracts faster than any human, spot issues more consistently, and generate first drafts that need minimal editing. Yet most firms still have associates doing this work manually, billing clients’ premium rates for commodity tasks.
This isn’t just inefficient. It’s malpractice. When better tools exist and lawyers refuse to use them, they’re failing their duty to serve clients effectively. The profession’s resistance to automation isn’t principled; it’s protectionist. We’re protecting outdated business models at the expense of access to justice.
Mark Cuban Is Right:
The Only Legal Skill That Matters Now Is Making Machines Work for You
by Ryan McKeen
Law Firms Are Having the Wrong Debate
Here’s what kills me: Right now, law firm management committees are sitting in conference rooms debating whether to allow ChatGPT or which legal AI vendor to select. They’re comparing Cocounsel to Harvey to Lexis+ AI. They’re drafting policies about acceptable use. They’re forming committees to study the issue.
They’re completely missing the plot. This isn’t a procurement decision. It’s not about picking the right product or crafting the perfect policy. It’s about fundamentally rewiring how lawyers think and work. While firms debate which walled garden to buy into, their competitors are teaching lawyers to be AI-native practitioners who can work with any tool that emerges.
The vendors selling “legal-specific AI” are laughing all the way to the bank. They’re charging firms tens of thousands per month for what amounts to GPT-5 with a legal wrapper. These firms think they’re buying safety and specialization. What they’re actually buying is limitation and dependency. Meanwhile, lawyers who know how to work directly with Claude or GPT5 are running circles around them, switching between models based on the task, combining tools for complex workflows.
The real competitive advantage isn’t having the “right” AI tool. It’s having lawyers who understand AI deeply enough to use any tool effectively.
The New Core Competency: AI Fluency
Cuban’s advice cuts through the noise: become intimate with LLMs. Not familiar. Not competent. Intimate. This means understanding their capabilities at a granular level. Knowing when Claude outperforms GPT-5 for legal analysis. Understanding how to chain prompts for complex reasoning. Recognizing when an AI hallucinates versus when it surfaces genuine insights.
Most lawyers treat AI like a search engine. They ask basic questions, get basic answers, and declare the technology overhyped. They’re using Formula One race cars to drive to the grocery store. The lawyers who will dominate the next decade are those who understand these tools deeply enough to push them to their limits.
This isn’t about learning to code. It’s about learning to think in ways machines can execute. It means breaking complex legal problems into discrete, solvable components. It means
understanding how to validate AI output and when to trust automated systems. It means knowing which tasks to delegate to machines and which require human judgment.
The skill hierarchy in law is inverting. Technical excellence used to mean mastering case law and procedure. Now it means orchestrating AI systems to handle routine work while you focus on strategy and client relationships. The lawyers who can make machines do their bidding will outcompete those who can’t by orders of magnitude.
It’s About Learning, Not Buying
The firms getting this right aren’t shopping for solutions. They’re building learning cultures. They’re running prompt engineering workshops. They’re creating internal labs where lawyers experiment with different models. They’re rewarding lawyers who find new ways to automate routine tasks.
One partner I know gave her entire team Claude and ChatGPT accounts and told them to break things. No policies, no restrictions, just pure experimentation. Within a month, they’d automated 40% of their document review process. Within three months, they were generating first drafts of briefs that needed minimal editing. They didn’t buy a legal AI product. They learned how to think with machines.
This is what Cuban means by becoming “intimate” with LLMs. It’s not about mastering a single tool. It’s about developing an intuition for how these systems think, what they can do, and how to push them beyond their obvious applications. It’s about learning the meta-skill of AI collaboration.
The firms still debating policies are already obsolete. While they worry about risk and compliance, their clients are using ChatGPT themselves and wondering why they’re paying lawyers to do work that machines can handle. The market won’t wait for the legal profession to get comfortable with AI. It will simply route around firms that refuse to adapt.
Building the Future Means Destroying the Present
Cuban’s most provocative point is his call to “invent new approaches.” He’s not talking about incremental improvement. He’s talking about burning down existing models and building something fundamentally different.
Consider legal research. The traditional approach involves hours in databases, reading cases, synthesizing holdings. The AI approach? Feed a well-crafted prompt to Claude or GPT-5, get a comprehensive analysis in seconds, then spend your time validating and refining. The entire research process collapses from days to hours.
Or take contract drafting. Instead of starting from templates and manually customizing clauses, AI-fluent lawyers generate entire agreements from natural language specifications. They iterate through versions in real-time during negotiations. What took weeks now takes hours.
These aren’t efficiency gains. They’re paradigm shifts. And they’re happening whether the legal establishment likes it or not. The firms clinging to traditional processes will be decimated by
competitors who embrace automation. The choice isn’t whether to adopt AI but whether to lead or follow.
The Path Forward Is Clear
Cuban’s advice is a roadmap, but most firms are treating it like a shopping list. Stop looking for the perfect AI product. Start building AI-native lawyers.
First, master the tools. Not a tool. The tools. Spend serious time with Claude, GPT-5, Gemini, and emerging platforms. Learn their strengths, weaknesses, and quirks. Understand how to prompt effectively, validate outputs, and chain operations for complex tasks. Make this part of professional development, not a side project.
Second, create learning environments. Give lawyers time and space to experiment. Reward failure and breakthrough equally. Share discoveries across teams. Build internal knowledge bases of effective prompts and workflows. Make AI fluency as important as legal knowledge in performance reviews.
Third, identify processes to eliminate. Every manual task in your practice is a target for automation. Document review, legal research, contract analysis, brief writing, client communications. Map these processes, then systematically replace them with AI workflows.
Fourth, invent new service models. When routine work takes minutes instead of hours, billing structures must change. Value-based pricing, subscription models, and outcome-based fees will replace the billable hour. Firms that figure this out first will capture massive market share.
The legal profession stands at an inflection point. Cuban sees it clearly: the future belongs to those who can command machines to do their bidding. The rest will be left behind, clinging to processes that no longer need to exist, charging for work that machines do better.
The lawyers who get it: They’re not learning to be traditional lawyers. They’re learning to be legal engineers, process eliminators, and AI orchestrators. They’re not asking which legal AI product to use. They’re learning to use them all, to think with machines, to see possibilities where others see threats. They’re following Cuban’s advice to the letter.
The question for practicing lawyers is simple: Will you join them, or will you be replaced by them? Cuban has shown you the path. Stop shopping for solutions and start learning. The only thing left is to walk it. n
Ryan McKeen is a co-founder of Best Era, LLC. Ryan has an extensive background as a lawyer and law firm owner drives his commitment to helping the legal community thrive. Ryan is dedicated to enriching the legal field by sharing insights from his experience. He co-authored the best-selling books “Tiger Tactics: Powerful Strategies for Winning Law Firms” and “CEO Edition,” and regularly speaks at national legal conferences on topics including innovative marketing, artificial intelligence, law’s future, and effective management. Learn more at www.bestera.io.
As attorneys, we are trained to anticipate risk and protect our clients from uncertainty. Yet many of us fail to apply that same diligence to our own practices. Succession planning is not just a professional courtesy—it’s a legal and ethical necessity.
A Cautionary Tale
The sudden death of a law firm’s founder or managing partner can trigger a cascade of problems—especially when no succession plan exists. One real-world example involved a 30-attorney firm with multiple offices in the Mid-Atlantic. After the unexpected passing of its managing partner, the firm unraveled within a year. Without a designated successor or leadership structure, attorneys began leaving, clients lost confidence, and operations ground to a halt. Eventually, the remaining lawyers voted to close the firm.
Solo practitioners are particularly vulnerable. Many work until they pass away, leaving family members or colleagues to sort out the aftermath. In sole proprietorships, the firm legally ceases to exist upon the owner’s death. Without a plan, client matters may be left unresolved, and the firm’s assets are liquidated to pay debts. Even partnerships and LLCs can face dissolution or legal disputes if succession provisions are missing.
Whether through internal leadership development, merger strategies, or buy-sell agreements, law firms must prepare for the unexpected. Succession planning isn’t just about continuity, it’s about protecting clients, staff, and the legacy of the firm.
Ethical Duties Require More Than Good Intentions
California attorneys are bound by fiduciary duties of competence, communication, loyalty, and confidentiality. These duties don’t end when we retire, become incapacitated, or pass away. If we fail to plan for the transition or closure of our practice, we risk breaching these obligations and exposing our clients to harm.
Law Practice Succession Planning: The Importance of Staying in Control
by Kimberly R. McGhee, Esq.
The California Rules of Professional Conduct— particularly Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.6 (Confidentiality), 1.15 (Safeguarding Client Property), and 1.17 (Sale of Law Practice)—set clear expectations for attorneys to act with diligence and care in managing their practices, even in transition.
California’s Default Rules: Reactive and Risky
If an attorney becomes incapacitated or dies without a succession plan, California law provides a framework— but it’s far from ideal. Under Business & Professions Code Sections 6180 and 6190, the Superior Court may assume jurisdiction over the law practice and appoint an attorney to wind it down. This process is designed to protect clients, but it can be slow, disruptive, and costly.
The court-appointed attorney may not be familiar with the practice, the clients, or the systems in place. Without prior arrangements, even basic tasks—like accessing trust accounts, retrieving files, or notifying clients—can become complicated. Confidentiality concerns, malpractice risks, and administrative burdens often fall on grieving family members or unprepared colleagues.
When There is No Plan
If the court steps in, the appointed attorney or representative must:
• Secure the office, files, and trust accounts
• Notify clients, courts, and opposing counsel
• Review calendars for deadlines and court appearances
• Handle payroll, insurance, leases, and vendor contracts
• Reconcile trust accounts and finalize billing
• Safely destroy or return client files
• Notify the State Bar and other agencies of the closure
This process can take months and may result in lost goodwill, client dissatisfaction, and even litigation.
Proactive Planning: A Professional Imperative
To avoid this scenario, I recommend the following steps:
• Designate a successor attorney: Choose someone you trust and formalize the arrangement in writing. This person should be prepared to step in immediately if needed.
• Create an emergency protocol: Include passwords, client lists, trust account details, and instructions for transferring or closing cases. Keep this updated and accessible.
• Consider selling or transferring your practice: If retirement or declining health is foreseeable, explore options for selling or transitioning your practice while you’re still able to oversee the process. Rule 1.17 governs the ethical sale of a law practice and requires client notification and consent.
• Communicate with clients and staff: Let them know you have a plan. This builds trust and ensures a smoother transition.
• Maintain insurance and records: Consider “tail” malpractice coverage and keep detailed records of client communications, billing, and file dispositions.
Planning Is an Act of Compassion
Succession planning is not just about protecting your business—it’s about protecting your clients, your colleagues, and your legacy. It’s a reflection of your professionalism and your compassion. n
Kimberly R. McGhee, Esq. is a Certified Elder Law Attorney (CELA®) and a Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law (California), with nearly two decades of experience representing families in elder, conservatorship, probate, and trust-litigation matters. She is a partner at The Estate Lawyers, APC, has been listed in Super Lawyers (2021-2025), and serves on the Trusts & Estates Executive Committee of the California Lawyers Association (TEXCOM). Learn more at www.theestatelawyers.com.
Attorneys
9 - FIGURES
MULTIPLE 8 - FIGURES
MULTIPLE 8 - FIGURES Seatback
MULTIPLE 8 - FIGURES
8 - FIGURES 15-Passenger Van - Auto Defect 8 - FIGURES
MULTIPLE 7 - FIGURES
Wage & Hour Class Action
MULTIPLE 7 - FIGURES
Door Latch Failure - Auto Defect
MULTIPLE 7 - FIGURES
Tread Separation - Auto Defect
MULTIPLE 7 - FIGURES Wage & Hour - PAGA Class
MULTIPLE 7 - FIGURES Roof Crush - Auto Defect
MULTIPLE 7 - FIGURES
Seat Belt Failure - Auto Defect
MULTIPLE 8 - FIGURES
MULTIPLE 7 - FIGURES
MULTIPLE 7 - FIGURES Airbag - Auto Defect
MULTIPLE 7 - FIGURES
Post-Collision Fire - Auto Defect
