AI, Not Taking Over the Practice of Law, But Changing It

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Managing your law practice can be challenging, marketing, time management, attracting clients, and all the things besides the cases that you need to do that aren’t billable. Welcome to this edition of the Unbillable Hour, the Law Practice Advisory podcast. This is where you’ll get the information you need from expert guests and host Christopher Anderson here on Legal Talk Network.

Christopher T. Anderson:

Welcome to The Un-Billable Hour, I am your host Christopher Anderson. And today’s episode of the Things that we talk about is production, but it’s really in a very real sense about everything. If you’ll recall in the main triangle of what it is that a law firm business must do, we’ve got to acquire new clients. We call that acquisition, produce the results that we promised them, we call it production. And we’ve got to achieve the business and professional results that make it worth the owner’s time and energy to put in the business. And we call that metrics. We also call out a fourth element, and that’s because in the center of that triangle, the three things that a business must do driving all of it for better or worse, is you or in the terms of futurists. And if you haven’t read Ray Kurzweil’s new book, the singularity is nearer.

You really should, we’ll call it U2 0.0 or enhanced you or u plus. And I bring all that up because we are going today to be wading into the artificial intelligence or augmented intelligence pool ai and separating the hype from the utility and helping to guide you into this quickly evolving technology. Probably something we’re going to do in several shows over the next year or two quite honestly, because whatever we teach today, quite honestly is going to need serious updates in a very quick amount of time. One of the premises of Ray Kurtz Wallace’s book, which is again, really if I were you, I would read the one from 10 years ago called The Singularity is Near and then read The singularity is nearer, they’re very informative, but the mathematical axiom really of his book is that the rate of change in technology is growing exponentially and the rate of the change of the rate of change is also growing exponentially.

So it’s a double exponent. It’s not only is the rate itself growing exponentially, but the growth in the rate is growing exponentially. So literally AI is just the newest expression of that and that is changing so fast and it’s scheduled to change faster as AI starts to write itself. Alright, well I’ve talked enough. That’s the show folks. See you later. No, we do have a guest today. My guest today is Austin Brittenham and he’s the co-founder of Second Chair. He’s a lawyer and he’s an AI expert in legal technology and also beyond legal technology. From his bio, he is a legal innovator at the intersection of AI and law. Austin is pioneering practical, ethical, and indispensable AI tools for legal professionals. Austin isn’t just a lawyer, he’s a problem solver and his legal background and hands-on experience give him a deep understanding of the challenges that lawyers face while his energy and curiosity drive him to learn from top minds in both AI and law. And that’s why he is on the show.

Austin Brittenham:

Christopher

Christopher T. Anderson:

Austin, welcome to the

Show. Be Trouble. I know it. Welcome. Seriously, and my bios are, I take small snippets from what I’ve learned about you and present them, but so I’d like to just first of all as an attorney start and let you augment that introduction by explaining to the listeners so they kind of understand how did a lawyer become an AI expert in legal tech and beyond. It’s not that old a field. So what triggered you to make that shift and found second chair and do that?

Austin Brittenham:

Sure. I mean, by some measures it sort of is an old field. Some of the papers on which artificial intelligence is built in our current iteration neural nets, that stuff’s been around since the late eighties, I believe. I might be getting my time wrong, but we weren’t able to make use of the technology until we had appropriate compute until the mid 20 teens. That being said, I started my first AI company 2017, ran that until 2019. I left, I worked at Amazon headquarters up in Seattle doing sort of a data operations role and then I went back to law school. So I came to law second first from technology.

Christopher T. Anderson:

Interesting.

Austin Brittenham:

And while I was writing in advance of law school about chat GT 2.5 and some curious ethical problems that were arising out of its use. And so when I was in law school, that’s when chat GPT publicly launched and it was like, okay, there’s a great deal of new problems we can solve or ways of existing work that we can make better for folks. So I started building while in law school

Christopher T. Anderson:

That definitely actually helps to put a lot of color on that, so I appreciate it. Yeah, I remember when I was in college before law school, I was one of the few lawyers who has a bachelor of science background and I was big into computing and the people who really were going to be graduating with electrical engineering or computer science degrees were studying ai. I remember it well, but yeah, you’re right. The hardware wasn’t there. The ideas were already, alright, so let’s talk about it today. Today it’s all the rage, right? Everybody’s talking about it. And it’s kind of funny because the book from seven or eight years ago, the end of lawyers wasn’t even really talking about AI as an issue, but here we are.

But I’m also old enough that I’ve watched wave after wave of the brand new technology that’s going to change everything. The internet was going to change everything. Smartphones, it is hard to remember that we’d been talking about numbers like 20 years, 20 years ago, y 2K time, we didn’t have smartphones. These things that we rely on every moment, they didn’t even exist. And so these things that were supposed to change the world now become commonplace. But before when they were first introduced or before they were introduced, the hype was that they were going to change everything. And that’s the hype about AI today is that it’s going to change legal practice, make lawyers redundant and make everybody else redundant and take over the world and Skynet and all this. Sure. But there’s also a lot of money going in and a lot of lawyers, a lot of worried about what’s going to happen. So can you help us? Let’s start the show by just talking about the hype versus the practical reality. What’s really going to happen from your perspective since you’ve been really focused on this stuff?

Austin Brittenham:

So I could do probably a whole show with you just on this topic.

Christopher T. Anderson:

So

Austin Brittenham:

I will try to both give you a breadth of answer but also be concise. I firmly believe that with a lot of technology, the future looks like it does today just more evenly distributed. I think that that’s true for space travel. I think that that’s true for ai. So that’s part of why we wanted to build the company. We make our AI tools for smalls and solos precisely because to your point, there is so much money being poured into new AI tools for AM law top 200 firms and global law firms, and the vast majority of American lawyers don’t work in those settings. It’s roughly 70% of our whole profession are in law offices of six and fewer attorneys. So my belief was we need to build tools for the everyday lawyers, what it will actually look like. I think particularly with respect to practice management, people are kind of targeting everything that lawyers do that they don’t want to do.

And as you know, lawyering is a wide collection of skills often talked about on the show. And so for some folks that means client intake, figuring out who’s sort of qualified to be represented by the firm and who maybe doesn’t have a legally cognizable harm or passed a statute of limitations or whatever. It’s for other folks, it’s the operations of the firm. Think digital marketing, web content, website creation, all of those things where it’s like it’s lawyer adjacent but you’ll have to be a lawyer to do it. And folks are like, I want AI to do that For me, we work more in the actual practice side. So back office stuff like folks tell us how they hate legal research or they love legal research, they hate legal writing or they love legal writing. But for every sort of behavior that a lawyer doesn’t want to do, I think folks are generally trying to build one or more tools that are able to do that kind of work.

And then the question becomes which ones do lawyers want to adopt? What is the pricing and strategy that makes it economically efficient for that firm? And then how do we all sort of at a collective level and handle that? The last thought is that I think that the profession with respect to practice will probably be protected for a while. We are one of the last remaining guilds and we will economically protect ourselves from AI taking our own jobs. But that being said, there’s change in the regulatory environment that’s allowing for software delivery of legal services either by non-lawyers or other kinds of folks. So that might happen a little bit more into the future. We’ll see.

Christopher T. Anderson:

Yeah, so people talk about like, oh, AI is going to change everything as if it’s this monolithic technology. It’s like computer chips are going to change everything they did, but you don’t just go get yourself a cup full of computer chips and drink and then it changes everything. So what you’re talking about I think is a good sobering way to start thinking about it is that AI powers tools.

Austin Brittenham:

That’s correct.

Christopher T. Anderson:

And then lawyers choose which ones to use. It’s funny that you led with practice management tools, you led with intake you didn’t talk about, but I bet billing collections.

Austin Brittenham:

Oh my gosh,

Christopher T. Anderson:

Review of bills and rewriting of bills, right? Which is the bane of a lot of lawyers’ existence.

Austin Brittenham:

Absolutely. I talked to a lot of folks that say, Hey, your tool is kind of interesting or that’s cool or whatever, but they’re like, can you make an AI that just automatically measures my six minute intervals and writes my time descriptions for me? And I’m like, well yeah, there’s actually, I think last I looked, there’s like 40 products that are doing that. It’s like pick your poison, right?

Christopher T. Anderson:

And those are powerful and useful. And then you said that you actually aren’t focusing on a lot of that back office stuff. You’re looking more into the practice. And so that’s where I’d want to just talk about a little bit. Let’s talk about it from the perspective of vision rather than, again, thinking about this as a monolithic entity, if we’re going to cast some vision, what is the way that AI has affected the way lawyers deliver legal services two to five years from now? But before you answer, we’re going to hear a word from our sponsors who make this show possible and we’ll be back in just a second. I am back with Austin Brittenham He is the co-founder of second chair. He’s a lawyer, an AI expert, and he’s talking to us about artificial intelligence in law. The question I asked right before the break was, alright, when AI has been implemented two to five years, I love always looking two to five years down the road. I think it really helps us keep focused rather than what do we need to do right now, which we will talk about. But before we talk about what we need to do right now, I think it’s good to say where are we going? So let’s talk first about legal services two to five years from now. How does it look different?

Austin Brittenham:

So I want to start with the present, which is in today’s world, about eight to 10% by estimates of folks with legally cognizable harms actually talk to a lawyer, get legal help.

Christopher T. Anderson:

So 90% don’t,

Austin Brittenham:

Do not. That’s correct. So the legal demand, or maybe there’s a mild disconnect between knowing you’ve suffered and that the law could help you and actually seeking it out, but there’s probably a close congruency there. So about 90% of legal demand is not met, which means that lawyers as a profession can do more. But working with lawyers as a lawyer, I don’t feel like I can do more. And so there’s a distinction there and that’s about labor supply, the number of lawyers we have. So I think at two to five years it’s lawyers being punchier. So folks talk about either moving to flat rate, we’ve talked to firms had clients who they moved to functionally like a subscription model with their clients, so you get X number of hours per month with them or attorney work, product creation or whatever it is. And then they have stable income.

So in those worlds, AI helps ’em work faster and they have a financial incentive to do so. Most bar jurisdictions are indicating that if you’re using AI tools to go a little faster or a lot faster, let’s say you take a 10 hour work product and you make it in one hour, you can’t bill for nine or 10 hours, but you could bill for two or three or maybe four or five depends on the jurisdiction. So you can functionally save time or two x three x four x five x your billable hour or you just have again, a financial incentive to move to a different model of legal service delivery. So I think those are the things that are more likely to happen. It’s not going to be AI sort of running your entire law firm. It’s going to be like lawyers are kind of changing the way that we deliver services.

I think the other thing to consider is that there’s some jurisdictions that are exploring the licensure of ai. So the first non-human entity licensed to practice law was in the state of Utah sometime after 2020. That’s in a test. The state of Washington as of April is launching a pilot program that would allow non-lawyers to deliver legal services. So think how nurse practitioners aren’t doctors, but they do. Some of the work doctors do, but not all of the work doctors do. Similarly either software enabled paralegals or just companies like mine straight delivering legal services in some capacity direct to consumers. And so there’s some jurisdictions that are playing with these alternate modes of delivery. And those I think happen much faster than everyone using ai. It’s the regulatory environment changes, the business environment changes, and then businesses have to stay nimble.

Christopher T. Anderson:

But so regulatory environments don’t typically change without somebody pushing. So who’s pushing for that change?

Austin Brittenham:

I think it looks different. So we’ve talked to some bar associations where it’s the sort of access to justice commission or side of them who was just like, we have all of these folks who are trying to service and we have very little money or not enough volunteer attorneys and so can we change this stuff so tech can help these people? I think sometimes it’s companies like mine but not mine. I think that there’s just lawyers cost a lot of money. Venture capitalists saw large language models are really good with words. Lawyers, to some people, their theory of what a lawyer does is just a lot of words like word input, work, document, word output. And so I think that there’s folks who identify that they could make a lot of money if those environments changed and they’re trying to get the guild dynamics of being a lawyer relaxed so that they can WeCh their way in.

Christopher T. Anderson:

Yeah. Well that makes a lot of sense when we look at it from a business perspective, from a economics perspective, from the invisible hands perspective, what you described being able to, let’s say just in theory, we’ll just take as true that you could do 10 hours of work in one. We’ll just let’s say that can’t be true, then one of two things can happen or a combination. One, my profit can go up 10 x, but you said bars are going to frown on that. You can’t really charge for 10 hours anymore.

Austin Brittenham:

Most of them have said you can’t,

Christopher T. Anderson:

But my profit can go up some.

Austin Brittenham:

That’s right.

Christopher T. Anderson:

And this is where normal economic forces will come into play. Some people will try to reduce what they charge down farther, and there’ll be a race

Austin Brittenham:

That’s right

Christopher T. Anderson:

To deliver to more, which means profits actually might not go up, but prices will go down, which will scare a lot of people because the law is, let’s face it, built on a very profitable model. But you also mentioned the 90%. So it’s not just access to justice because a lot of people when they think about access to justice, let’s face it, what they’re really talking about is people who are in the first camp that you talked about, I’ve got this cogniti of harm, I want a lawyer still in that 10%, but I can’t afford one sad me now I’m going to go for legal services, I’m going to ask a law firm to do pro bono work, something like that. But what you’re saying is then there’s still this huge chunk of people who have the cognitive harm but aren’t even really engaging yet. So this whole 10 x almost untapped marketplace,

Austin Brittenham:

And I think that that changes the function of what lawyers do, where if maybe less of our work is in the creation of work products and more of it is in sales and marketing. It’s finding these folks and getting them to come talk to you, getting out into your community so that you’re a pillar or a face so that people know who to come to. And maybe that’s flavored by me living for a period of time in rural jurisdictions. So it’s easier to just be one of a small number of attorneys who everybody knows to go to with a problem. Now I live in a big city and so it’s a little harder to be that person. But I think, yeah, the other thing to call out is that in-house

Teams are taking in more legal work because they’re facilitated by ai, so their legal departments can do more themselves without needing outside counsel. So I think that the other way that the future might look is these firms that primarily service corporations might see that their business is slowly drying up or quickly drying up. In fact, I’ve heard of this already and I’ve seen it stated at industry events and I’ve seen it, I’ve talked to law firms for who it was not stated to them, but just happened quietly, was that they were just getting less and less work from some of their existing

Christopher T. Anderson:

Big

Austin Brittenham:

Whales. And the reason for that was because AI tools meant that the corporations could do their own legal work themselves and they had less need for expensive outside counsel that they also knew was a bunch of associates who could be replaced with technology. I don’t know.

Christopher T. Anderson:

So in that world then that we’ve kind of described where we can get a lot more done in the same amount of time or less time, which means at the end of the day when we boiled it all down and you follow the logic tree that you and I just went through means we can serve a lot more people and that the demand, your hypothesis is the demand’s out there. It’s just not where we’ve been looking for it. In that world, what is the value add for the lawyer? What’s the value that lawyers are still bringing to the table?

Austin Brittenham:

Yeah, I love this question. We have several duties to our clients that exceed just input of words and output of word work product, like highest and best of our behavior. I think about our duty as counselors, and I think that those historical obligations or work that we did were reduced in the 19 hundreds where lawyers just became input output machines. If it’s true that AI takes over those functions of drafting your first or second draft at a brief or a motion, then it frees lawyers to go be the other things that lawyers do, like being counselors, being sort of the most professional person in the room or whatever the other value props that we bring

Christopher T. Anderson:

That we’ve forgotten to some extent. But I’m all for that. I think that’s amazing. Alright, we’re going to take another break here. We’re talking with Austin Brittenham. He is the co-founder of second Chair AI expert. When we come back, we’re going to get practical. So in the last segment that we have together, we’re going to just talk about what AI tools can lawyers use today, what can they put into practice right now to approach this future that we’re talking about? But first one more word from the sponsors that make this show happen. I am back with Austin Brittenham, co-founder of Second Chair. He’s a lawyer, he’s an AI expert beyond legal tech, but also in legal tech. And we’re talking to our wonderful audience here of law firm owners and I’ve enjoyed the conversation. I’m pretty sure they have as well, but I always try to get something practical to our listeners and we’re going to go there right now. So this future that you’ve described might sound scary to some, but listen, let’s all face it, that’s where we’re headed. So as we walk that path, because we’re not going to snap our fingers and be there though, I really believe it’s going to kind of feel like it. What are some tools that lawyers should be looking to enhance and enable their practice today? What’s actually the most valuable return on their investment? Face it, there’s still an investment of money and investment of time to get these tools. Where should they be looking?

Austin Brittenham:

Yeah, so I’ll try to give maybe four answers of varying complexity, but again, quickly. So if you’ve never touched an AI tool, I was talking with one bar jurisdiction, 75% of their surveyed members have not yet touched any AI tools. We’re talking chat GPT, let alone the legal specific ones. So if you’re in that category, then I would encourage you to try chat. GPT. I talked to this very elderly woman we met at a coffee shop and we were chatting about the work I do, and she was like, that all sounds scary. I was like, well, listen, you can tell it the food you have in your fridge and it will come up with a recipe just based on the food you have on hand. And when I told it to her in that way, she was like, oh, that’s actually really cool. So I think it’s about finding the thing that you connect with this stuff on.

And I’m not even like, I frankly hardly use it except when I need to. So I’m not one of the folks who’s talking to it every day, but I do think that there’s reasons to seek it out. So I think that’s a place to start. The level one if you’re already using those is to start looking at the tools that are probably built into products you already use. So Microsoft has their co-pilot. If you’re using your phone, there’s a bunch of AI tools in there. If you’re using Clio, that’s another place where Clio itself has AI tools or you can go into their marketplace and there’s lots of folks who have built integrations with them. So I think that’s sort of these lower cost easier to deploy already in your environment. The third is your Lexus or your Westlaw companies like mine, second chair where we’ve got sort of legal specific tools. And then the fourth is some folks are out there. There are law firms that are seeking out developers to build stuff just for their firm to meet their firm’s particular needs. And there’s some economics that make sense and not just for the big dogs, the big AMLO, top two hundreds, whatever,

Christopher T. Anderson:

Because AI has actually enabled that development to go a lot easier and faster as well. That’s one of the meta tools,

Austin Brittenham:

Depends who you ask. My engineers hate it. But yeah, I think it does allow for faster building or faster prototyping especially. The other thing I would add about how to be practical about it, I think everybody needs, you need to check out your bar jurisdiction. So your state bar is going to have rules about what you can and can’t do. So in some states you cannot use copilot or copilot has not been explicated chat, GPT off the shelf. You can’t use that for legal work. And in some bar jurisdictions there’s no guidance in some. You have to disclose to all of your clients in your engagement letter that your firm uses generative ai. Other times you only have to disclose in your engagement letter if you intend to use it for that client. So there’s the practical sort of considerations about the tool, but there’s also the practical considerations about the actual sort of getting your work, your firm using it appropriately in ways that aren’t going to get you sanctioned because that scares I think a lot of owners.

Christopher T. Anderson:

Yeah, no, it is scary. But what’s really kind of funny about it is it’s quickly becoming kind of like saying you have to let your clients know that you use computers or electricity, right?

Austin Brittenham:

Do I have to tell them that I use autocorrect in my phone?

Christopher T. Anderson:

And to your point, you said 75% haven’t touched it. I don’t think that’s true. I think that a good chunk of that 75% are touching it all the time and have no idea.

Austin Brittenham:

Sure,

Christopher T. Anderson:

I would agree. Because their tools are already being enabled with AI in ways and the general marketplace doesn’t have to disclose.

Austin Brittenham:

And I think that’s also the scariness of it all. It came out and it’s still actually quite unclear about whether or not, so Microsoft copilot the AI is not for our non-technical audience. The AI is not remembering sort of the stuff it writes for you, but for a period of time, the prompts, the things you were telling it to write, which you might include, revise this memo about my client where they’re accused of sexual assault or workplace discrimination or whatever that prompt was being stored, retained and reused by Microsoft. And so what started out as a popular tool for lawyers as their first touch with AI very quickly became risks of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. And so Christopher, that’s why I pushed so hard that folks should be apprised of the regulatory environment because it is still unclear like Twitter conversations with the PM of the tool about whether or not that’s still happening in ways that would risk attorney-client privilege.

Christopher T. Anderson:

Yeah, no, I think that’s a really great point. So as we get ready to go, I’m going to ask one more question here. This is a really important one. I remember one of the things that you mentioned as we were talking through some of the things AI could do is we talked about time and billing and you kind of threw out the comment that yeah, if that’s what you want, there’s like 40, I forget whatever you said, 40 something vendors. It’s something like that. And if you type that search into Google, you’ll have them all over all of your feeds. So the question here is, okay, in some sense it’s like what am I going to use it for? And then in some sense, as soon as you dip your toe in this water, the opportunities will kind of wash over you. There’s too many. So how do they choose? How do my listeners when they say, okay, let me try this time, and billing sounds a good low hanging fruit, and then they get these five dozen vendors that do it, what are the criteria they should be looking at? How do they make this decision?

Austin Brittenham:

So I’ll plug us that we’ve got a blog post on our blog that’s sort of practical considerations for law firms to consider an AI tool. And then I think another one about general considerations or technical considerations, but the highlights are you should be wary of tools made for lawyers that are not owned or operated by lawyers. There are a few that are out there that are good, don’t get me wrong, but there’s a lot of folks who, like I said earlier, saw lawyers as a way to make money and they just don’t know or even think to think about the professional obligations that we have. So they’re building tools in ways that are super risky. So I would say sort of that’s one as you’re talking to sales folks or you’re on their website, ask them about what their data retention policy is. So does the AI hold onto information? If so, what kind do they use your data to make the AI better? And you don’t have to be super technical to know if their answer sounds right to you,

Christopher T. Anderson:

Right? Yeah, that’s a big one. Do they train on your data because your client privileged information being used to train?

Austin Brittenham:

That’s right. And also sort of where does the data move? So sometimes folks, they’re sending the underlying ai doing the computation is something like chat GPT from OpenAI or Claude from Philanthropic. And so what are their agreements with their vendors? So if they’re not doing this computation themselves, then what is the third party that’s doing it? What are their data security provisions and stuff that can be annoying to kind of track down? A lot of vendors don’t have that information publicly available. If they did, it would be risky to their business. So that’s why I kind of think something like what’s in Clio or these places where there’s some amount of vetting before you even get to the vendor might be really useful for everyday lawyers. The other thing that my company does, we do all that stuff for free. So even if you’re not going to use us, you can call us up and ask us questions. You can read our materials. We keep track of the entire regulatory environment of all of theBar guidance. It’s free, it’s on a map on our website. Those are just some examples. I guess the last thing is ask an ai ask chat GPT, what it would do. There you go. And honestly, it’s going to give you a pretty alright answer. It’s going to give you better than if you didn’t ask it. I’ll put

Christopher T. Anderson:

It that way. That’s funny. Yeah, it won’t be use me because yeah, it is from the language model. Alright, Austin, I think that is actually really helpful. So you mentioned your blog, you mentioned your website, but you didn’t give you URL. So if people want to learn more about all this stuff or reach out to your company or even you, how should they do that?

Austin Brittenham:

Yeah, so my company is second chair, like the number two ND chair ai. You can also Google us, you can find me on LinkedIn, Austin Brittenham, B-R-T-T-E-N-H-A-M. Pretty sure there’s only one of me. And then our website also has a bunch of ways to get in contact with us, our email, our contact form, all that kind of stuff. The last is you can email me directly. I’m [email protected]. So we try to be as accessible as possible. It’s one of the things we pride ourselves on.

Christopher T. Anderson:

Fantastic. And of course you can check out the show notes here on Legal Talk Network and all that stuff will be in there as well. Austin, thank you so much.

Austin Brittenham:

Happy to be here.

Christopher T. Anderson:

It’s been our pleasure as well. We’re going to probably invite Austin back, but in the meantime, we do have to wrap up this edition of The Un-Billable Hours. So thank you all for listening. Our guest today, one more time has been Austin Brittenham, co-founder of second chair lawyer, AI expert. And as you can tell, just really, really knows his stuff in this field. And also don’t forget that you can probably catch up with Austin at the next edition of Community Table, which is the third Thursday. And I think we all figured out that that’s July 17th right now or anytime. Come to the community table on the third Thursday at 3:00 PM Eastern, 12 o’clock Pacific, and you can ask anything and the answers will not be delivered by ai. They’ll be delivered by us human beings. Until then, this is Christopher T Anderson and I do look forward to seeing you next month with another great guest as we learn more about topics that help us build the law firm business that works for you. Remember, you can subscribe to all the additions of this [email protected] or on iTunes. And of course, you can catch us and ask us anything at the Unbillable Hour community table with Clio on the third Thursday of every month at 3:00 PM Eastern, 12 o’clock Pacific. Thank you so much for joining us. We will speak again soon.

Announcer:

The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of nor are they endorsed by Legal Talk Network, it’s officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders, and subsidiaries. None of the content should be considered legal advice. As always, consult a lawyer. Thanks for listening to the Unbillable Hour, the Law Practice Advisory Podcast. Join us again for the next edition right here with Legal Talk Network.

Continue Reading