Hello, welcome to another edition of Thinking Like a Lawyer.I'm Joe Patrice.
And that's Katherine Urbino.We are editors at Above the Law, and we are here to talk about the top stories in legal from the week that was.We're normally joined by our editor, Chris Williams, but he's not here right now.He had some scheduling issues.
We'll keep you apprised.You'll be the first to know, along with us.It'll be great.
No, that technically means they're not first, right?
They'll be amongst the first to know for sure.
Sure.All right.But first, I guess let's have some small talk. Yeah, so I came back from a legal tech conference.Obviously, those of you who listen to the show every week know that I recorded a show while I was there.
But one of the things I learned while I was there that refers to an old show is that apparently the Legal Talk Network has a clip of me that they put on YouTube that is closing in on a million views.
Did you know that?I did not.
It's a it's kind of a frustrating one, actually, because it's from an old episode where we were talking about Kamala Harris as her prosecutorial record, which is fairly, you know, you've heard of progressive prosecutors.
Her record was fairly regressive as a prosecutor.And it was me making the point
several years ago, that it is somewhat problematic, the way in which not not just being regressive prosecutor, but the way in which in the specific prosecutions she chooses to highlight tend to be kind of a toxic aspect of politics, good to always talk about the like, the harm that you might have caused as a prosecutor.
And I just said, that's really not that great.The problem with that clip right now, then by problem, I mean, it's why it's closing in on almost a million views.
But the sad thing about it is it really kind of highlights, to me, it highlighted how people can't walk and chew gum at the same time politically, because there's conservative people who like it and are trying to claim that it's a reason not to vote for her, which, I mean, it's not like those people wouldn't be
The actual prosecutions that you are highlighting are not what they think the problem is.
And and the more liberal people who are complaining that we should just pretend that things don't happen, you know, sort of it leans towards the same sort of cult like following that I think has poisoned the Republican Party at this juncture.
So I certainly don't think we should do that.I would love to live in a world where you could Actually say that a candidate has severe flaws, but they are still the best person to vote for sure
But instead, this clip is locking down.It was at like 980,000 with a bullet, so.Well, there you go.Yeah.
Well, yeah, that is interesting.And piggybacking on, right, that's right, your event, your legal tech event, we both did an event at the University of Houston Honors College for some pre-law students.
And it's always super fun to talk to people who are thinking about law school.Yeah.I mean, I jokingly, but also a little bit seriously, tend to think that my job here at Above the Law is trying to convince people not to go to law school.
I mean, it's certainly part of the job.
Yeah, I mean, listen, I think law school gets like a really good rep from like just kind of the zeitgeist out there.You know, people know what a lawyer is.They, you know, see them on TV.But do they actually want to be? A lawyer?I'm not sure.
Yeah, I mean, look, and some people do, and some people have really thought through kind of what they want to do.It's good to talk to those folks.
The other brand of folks that I think it's always good to talk to about law school are folks who are kind of in the position that I was certainly in, which is those who don't yet know.They have no frame of reference for law.
They don't have family members or whatever. their approach to law is, I'm going to be a litigator because I've seen it on TV, which is, you know, which may well work out for them.They may enjoy that.
But, you know, they're closing themselves off to practice areas that are less, there's just not, there's just not law and order ERISA practice or anything like that, you know.
Ally McBeal, weirdly, never handled- Yeah, never was a tax lawyer.
And so I always feel like it's good to have these sorts of conversations to talk about.You can have a legal career that does not look like Matlock, even the old Matlock, who was less ethically challenged, as we talked about in the past.
You probably should not use a false identity to practice law.
Certainly what we said on last week's show.
That is not controversial.
But yeah, so is that's always good to know.You know, I was gonna follow up also with, we were just talking about how I recorded a podcast last week by myself.
Speaking of podcasts, I will flag here that James Carville, you know, the raging has a podcast.And anybody who doesn't listen to that every week should check out
And the most recent episode, at least as of this recording, around the 47 minute mark or so, he talks about Above the Law and- Specifically you.
And the story I wrote, yeah.Yeah, we were in the office and you started playing it, which seemed a little rude, but you know, I wasn't shocked by that behavior.Well, okay.No, but you started playing it, I think to get my real time kind of reaction.
I mean, it was my real time reaction.Somebody had just written me saying you should check out this podcast at this time.
And sometimes, you know, things that we write make waves beyond sort of the insular legal world, for sure.But, you know, you expect maybe like a mention, not necessarily a deep dive.
And James Carville had definitely read your piece, thought about your piece, had opinions about your piece. and wanted other people to read your piece and made sure to spell your name, P-A-T-R-I-C-E, to make sure that people could find it.
Which article was it actually about?
It was an article I recently wrote about Eli Honig, who is a CNN legal analyst who has taken it upon himself, and I've talked about this actually when I was on CNN once, I talked about this, that he's taken it upon himself to criticize the prosecutions of Donald Trump in a way that he's just wrong about.
Like, you can have opinions about these prosecutions and why they should or should not have been made.
In fact, I was a little skeptical of the New York case when it originally was filed for a variety of reasons, but none of them are the ones that he's citing.
The ones he's citing don't even make sense, and so he's now complaining about the federal prosecution for the January 6th case, saying that it
violates the DOJ manual on bringing actions against a political candidate within 90 days of an election, which is putting aside that that's not actually what that rule says.It's not as though anything's been brought here.
The case was brought well in advance of this.The Supreme Court tried to slow it down.Right. And that's not, that doesn't invoke the DOJ's issues here.Just a real kind of botching of this.And I'm not the only one who wrote an article like this.
I know Ampywheel wrote some, I think wrote an attack of this claim that the DOJ manual says this.So there are a lot of folks out there making this.
Sure, but I thought what was interesting is, Sort of your comparison to another frequent topic of this podcast.Jonathan, as James Carville called him, turd Lee.
Yes.Yeah.No, I compared him to to Turley.And so did so did Carville.And yeah.So but it is really a trip.
Listen, when people get famous for terrible legal takes, you're going to see more terrible legal takes.Yeah, that should not be strange to people.It should be concerning.
Yeah. that there is a path to some level of infamy by just being bad at your job.Yeah.Anyway, so yeah, no, check out Carvel's podcast.
It is really a trip to hear somebody because I'm of an age where I remember watching the documentary about that original Clinton election.Sure.
And you know, this, this is this larger than life figure who's from dating back to when I was in junior high, high school, and you don't have him say your name and everything.You're just kind of like, Whoa, yes. Well, I guess that's happening.
That is not uncool.Yeah, I will.I will forgive you.Fair enough.
Thanks for that.OK. All right.Let's let's talk.You speaking of talk, tick tock.You have a story.
So I don't know if your tick tock feed is anything like mine, but for the last few weeks, I've gotten a ton of content about Gen Z and the workplace.Apparently, Gen Z is just awful at working.
And there was a recent study that said 60 percent of employers had fired a Gen Z employee within months of hiring them.
They did some, I think 90% of respondents said that Gen Z needed work etiquette lessons because they don't know how to speak to people in the workplace.They don't know how to respond in a professional manner.
Just lots of sort of dogging on Gen Z. They treat it like it's school and that's a real problem.And I think part of the issue, right, is that School has changed to a consumer based model.
That's true of sort of both undergraduate and even high schools where it's, you know, the students and the parents are the consumers and they try and the consumer is never really wrong.And so they have a very different attitude towards teachers.
And so that translates when they're in the workplace and they think that sort of the organization should be serving them.And, you know, that is really not how capitalism works.
So it's been a kind of a rough transition for Gen Z, but the oldest of Gen Z, those who may have gone straight through from undergrad to law school, are now lawyers.
And there was a TikTok of an experienced Florida attorney who had to deal with a very new attorney, and it was just some of the more egregiously rude behavior you've heard about in the legal space.
It was a criminal defense attorney speaking to somebody, a prosecutor, about a very standard kind of continuance.There'd been no discovery in the case, whatever, emailed.
Apparently the deadline for the judge was, you know, there was a deadline coming up on Thursday, emailed Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, tracked them down to their office.They very rudely sort of held up a finger and was like, I'm busy, email me.
And the woman was like, I have for several days now.Eventually wound up putting all of the correspondence, like got ahold of the assistant.You could hear in the background, the attorney yelling at the assistant, how dare you interrupt me?
This is a breach of my boundaries.And the experienced attorney is like, no, it's not.
I promise you, this is just very, very, very standard motion practice.We wound up putting all of these sort of interactions into their motion, because they usually get a prosecutor's approval before they submit them.
But the judge quickly read it all and was like, oh, yeah, you get this continuance.So kind of had a happy ending for the experienced attorney.
But I don't think this is going to end well if that's your attitude in the legal profession, not just because you are not making friends. And listen, networking is a tremendously large part of the job.Right.
You know, when you treat someone like that, you're going to need you're going to need a defense attorney's approval in the future.Right.You're going to have to work together.
Yes, it's adversarial, but there's still supposed to be some professional respect amongst you and the opponent.And you're not going to get it if you start treating people like this.And I think that the content creator
was very gracious and said, you know, I remember the beginning of my career.You know, you get overwhelmed.
There's especially, you know, in the criminal space, you know, you often get overwhelmed with clients and deadlines and there's so much going on.But I think that how one reacts to that pressure and how one reacts to that feeling of overwhelmedness
really matters.And I think that's something that schools are not teaching.
You know, it is interesting you make that point about schools, because, you know, every generation goes through this where the old people pretend that this new generation is uniquely broken in a way that they aren't.
They're just like everybody else historically.But you do make the point that schools have become a little more lenient, a little more lenient towards the customer being right in ways that are a little messed up.
I hear from people I know in collegiate education that say parents will call up administrators and be like, my kid needs this, my kid needs that, and I'm like, I can't even That would that would horrify anybody in college when I was there.
Yes.And I think there's definitely that.And there's also sort of more leniency about rule violations at a lot of schools.This is obviously not universal, but, you know, there's a lot more plagiarism.
plagiarism and sort of breaking of other sort of rules because of the internet and things are so widely available and some schools have AI, generative AI policies and others do not, et cetera, et cetera.
That's going to become more of an issue.
Yeah, it's only going to get worse.And, you know, there was definitely a world where if you were if you were credibly accused and, you know, the school found that you had plagiarized, you were out.
Right, but right now we're dealing and we see this, there's some legal aspect to this.It's become more of a political thing, but we've definitely had legal instances of this.
We're also dealing with a world where nobody understands what plagiarism even means.Well, sure.Because we've got the Washington Free Beacon out here blaming everybody, every liberal person of all time of plagiarizing.
Because they're quoting.I mean, the one that was the most egregious was the Harvard president that they managed to get fired, well, force out of the job. by claiming, look at all these times that there's plagiarism.
And some of it is quoting the text of a statute she's writing about.That is not plagiarism, not what I was talking about.Get real.Yeah, no, it's just.
Well, and I guess now they're trying to claim that Harris plagiarized something because there's like vague quotes of other statutes and stuff in that in her book.Just yeah, we don't have a sense of what plagiarism means.
And I mean, query whether or not plagiarism is even
Something we should be mad about that's a shout out to law professor Brian Fry who has a who argues that Maybe we should be more lenient about plagiarizing generally well, okay, but not not really the point here right the point is just that all sorts of
problems, academic problems are being treated a lot more leniently than I think historically, you know, the curves are getting more generous, et cetera, and not, not sort of being forced to have consequences, dire sometimes consequences.
I mean, within the context, it's not life and death necessarily, but I think has really had an impact on an entire generation of students.
It's amazing how connected we can be online, but feel less connected at work.Discover Metwork, the platform that connects lawyers and paralegals across the legal community.
On Metwork, lawyers build specialized case teams, generate referral revenue, and gain a winning advantage.Meet the collaborators, mentors, and teammates who will take your practice to the next level.
Join Metwork for free and start making connections that matter.Visit metwork.com slash thinking.We've met, let's work. Network.McDermott, Will & Emery is one of Vault's top five best law firms to work for.Why?Because they're doing big law better.
At McDermott, you define what your success looks like.They help you achieve it.Within McDermott's collaborative, inclusive culture, you'll find partners who are invested in your success.
McDermott's award-winning professional development program and hands-on mentorship propel you toward your goals, while their industry-leading wellness benefits help you feel your best so you can do your best.
Want to see how your life could be better at McDermott?Head to mwe.com slash abovethelaw.All right, well, from there, let's go to the Chief Justice.The Chief Justice, you know, not unlike one of those students, has had his feelings hurt.
As we've learned from a CNN piece covering this, the Chief Justice is sad.
Apparently, he felt that everyone was going to love his Trump opinion, which he determined that Trump not only is immune from official acts in office, which isn't particularly earth-shattering, but that this definition of official acts is sufficiently expansive that even if he were to commit personal, non-official acts, you couldn't use anything from his time doing
his time in office where he's doing also official stuff to prove that he did something unofficial.
Essentially, the practical aspect of this is that, for instance, his paying a lawyer, his private lawyer to pay hush money to a porn star and then create false business records to record that, obviously not an official act of a president.
But since this happened while he was in office, and therefore the testimony of some of his
AIDS was important in proving that it had happened, according to Robert's opinion, that would potentially mean that that verdict is suspect because you can't use the fact that he used official people or official documents or official testimony to prove even unofficial acts.
I mean, I think what this piece really shows is just how out of sync the Supreme Court is.
And I mean, I think that's inevitable in anything, any role where you have a lifetime appointment and no practical recourse to any to a lot of misbehavior, as we have seen on the court currently.
But I don't imagine John Roberts knows what most people think.
It is an interesting take for him to apparently have these feelings, especially because it's not like he didn't live through the Gerald Ford situation, and that was an instance where Gerald Ford thought he was healing the country by pardoning Nixon, and more or less all he did was seal his fate as the guy who was going to lose the next election.
Because as it turns out, people don't generally love when you bend over backwards for partisan reasons to shut off the criminal justice process.
I mean, I think that he's probably right in the sense that the political temperature is very different in 2024, but it is not improved that for for his position.And I mean, listen, there was a Fox News poll that we wrote about just
kind of across the board, Democrats, Republicans, independents widely disapprove of this Supreme Court decision.And that was a real shock for a man who doesn't talk to the average American probably ever.
I mean a point that we made in our coverage of it is it's often talked about as being a 6-3 opinion with all the conservatives on one side and the liberals on the other.
And while it is true that part of the decision is 6-3, it is only that official act part that is 6-3. For full credit, Amy Coney Barrett did not join the part that said you can't use, like, Hope Hicks' testimony to prove a crime that is non-official.
And that's really the weird part.And it seems quite upset or at least annoyed by the majority on that part.
And there's a non-zero argument, there's a decent, colorable argument that the six justice part of that majority is probably more right than wrong.
We do have reasons why if you are a president and you do something as part of your official office, you are immune from prosecution over it. Yeah, she definitely correctly, I think.
Listen, if that part was the only part of the decision and it had been more judiciously worded, it's possible it was a 9-0, right?Because if you read those dissents, the dissents really are talking about the sort of second half, the part that's 5-4.
Yeah, that's the stuff that they're real that that's when Sotomayor's dissent really goes off on.Yeah.
So, I mean, I think that there was certainly a world where a much more measured, narrowly constructed decision gets written that is much more unifying in a way that he maybe hoped.And the other thing that I think is really interesting
What we learn from behind the scenes because of this CNN reporting is that he didn't even John Roberts did not seem to even try to reach out to the liberals on the court to kind of get them in on a bunch of these sort of very political decisions this term or this past term, not this current term.
And I think that that lack is a real problem.Like, how do you not see what's going on in the country right now and not understand that trying to can to to create a 9-0 on any of these political issues would have had tremendous power and impact.
There's a reason why Brown v. Board was 9-0, and it took two years to come to.And that kind of foresight and historical perspective is simply something that is missing in the Chief Justice.
Well, and it's weird because, you know, the narrative that he's in no small part helped cultivate is that he cares about the legitimacy of the institution.And this is becoming a real problem for the institution.
This is, as you said, this is a situation where you could have probably gotten a 9-0 on official acts, no, unofficial acts.
Yes.Could have found a nine.Oh, in that case.
Yeah, I think if you assigned this to Barrett, you probably would have gotten nine.Oh, on that part, you might have gotten some dissents on some mean concurrences saying, hey, we should go further.But you would have done that.
The problem is, if you'd done that, you would have meant that several of the prosecutions against Trump unequivocally have to go forward.
And ultimately, that was what this court was trying to do was stop these prosecutions, because at the end of the day, there was no principle to any of this.
Yes.And that naked fact has been laid bare by the chief justice's actions, as well as other members of the court.But I think that the past couple of years makes it very, very clear what John Roberts actually values.And it's it's
gaslighting to say that's the credibility of the court.
Yeah.It's time to stop indulging that narrative.
Yeah.I mean, listen, we the institution's credibility is at an all time low and there doesn't appear to be any way for it to recover unless we have massive reform of the institution, which seems like a political long shot.
And I'm going to write a piece on this in the near future, I haven't gotten around to it, but there's a disturbing, you use the word gaslighting, there's a disturbing form of gaslighting that's now starting to kick up, which is as the court's credibility continues to decline, and people call for reform,
The response is to say, you people are calling the court illegitimate, and that's bad, which no one's necessarily using, or if they're using that term, they're using it in a very different way.
But they're trying to shield the credibility loss from reform by claiming that not believing the court has credibility means that you're declaring the government illegitimate, which is It's a gaslighting effort that has been on the uptick.
And there've been several articles that have tried to use this idea that if you in any way question how many free vacations a justice gets, that you have crossed from saying we need reform into, you know, Andrew Jackson territory.
Today's legal news is rarely as straightforward as the headlines that accompany them.On Lawyer to Lawyer, we provide the legal perspective you need to better understand the current events that shape our society.
Join me, Craig Williams, and a wide variety of industry experts as we break down the top stories.Follow Lawyer to Lawyer on the Legal Talk Network or wherever you subscribe to podcasts.
You like legal podcasts because you're curious and want to be the best attorney you can be.I'm Dave Scriven-Young, host of Litigation Radio, produced by ABA's Litigation section with Legal Talk Network.
Search in your favorite podcast player for Litigation Radio to join me and my guests as we examine hot topics in litigation and topics that will help you to develop your litigation skills and build your practice.
I hope you'll check out Litigation Radio and join the ABA Litigation section for access to all of the resources, relationships, and referrals you need to thrive as a litigator.
All right, we're back.Chris has finally made it in.Hey, Chris.
Yeah, I took a wrong turn at the platform, nine and three quarters.
Yeah, oh, nice, nice, nice.Well, yeah, no, we had mentioned that there was a chance we were gonna be able to get you in before the end of the show, so you made it.
Welcome, and- And you get to be here for, I would argue, our story about spooky season, because it's about ghosting. Oh, oh, that was bad.
But it is actually your story.And it is actually about ghosting.It is actually Joe's story.One of the numerous legal tech conferences that he's been popping off to had some really you suck.
Sorry, I had to try and find the sound effect.It's not one that we bring up often.
It does, where it actually falls on the show makes me think that it's saying that you suck, since I was talking about your reporting in this instance.
My reporting is excellent.Your joke, though.That's where we're going.
It was real.It was real good.
So we will jump from there.So yes, I was at the Clio Cloud Conference.Among the things that happened there, obviously they talk about the technology that they are working on.
They also talk about their kind of broader philosophy for building out small and solo law firms.But one of the key aspects of that show every year is the release of their Legal Trends Report, which now they've done for nine years maybe.
What the Legal Trends Report takes, you know, Some data that they gather through survey also takes anonymized aggregated data from the use of their platform to figure out things about just the general practice of law.
A lot of interesting insights we've talked in the past about insights about like where billing rates should be relative to the market and stuff.Anyway, the big one here is they did another iteration of something they did several years ago,
which was a secret shopper effort, where basically they- I just watched the secret shopper episode of Superstore, so I'm very interested, which is from years ago at this point, but my nieces were very interested in it.
So how do you secret shop a law firm?
So in conjunction with some consultants, they were calling around, they had a specific request of a hypothetical client, and they were reaching out to law firms to find out What's going on?
They like specific answers to some key legal questions, some conversations about representation.They reached out through multiple formats.They reached out to a thousand law firms via email and 500 over the phone.
The last time they did this in 2019, the numbers were pretty grim.A lot of people didn't really respond to them. which, you know, the hence your ghosting joke, which is not great since, you know, the fundamental thing you need as a lawyer.
Clients, they're the ones who pay, that's your business.
Overinflated sense of self-worth and clients, those are the things that you need.
And yet, that self-worth is yet to pay the bill, does not keep the lights on.
Back in 2019, only 60% of law firms responded to those emails.
Thankfully, with the benefit of five years and the perspective based on this information, yeah, five years, it is now 67 percent.So it has gotten worse.
That's over two thirds of around, if not over two thirds of law firms did not respond to email requests. for what's going on.Now, on the one hand, there is something to be said for the rise of spam and phishing.
There are more people who reach out with, as I put in the piece, hello friend, I am Nigerian Prince and I need legal advice to collect a million dollars.Like, if that's the request- Wait, he emailed you too?
If that's the request, I understand why you might not read it.That said, these were crafted requests that were designed to seem very, very legitimate.So... Maybe that's a reason people aren't responding over email, but it's not a very great one.
But what about that old-fashioned phone call?
Phone calls become a lot harder to justify.Back in 2019, my one quibble with the report is that they do the numbers backwards here, as opposed to who didn't respond to this is now who did.Back in 2019, 73% did call back.Okay, so that seems correct.
now 52% called back.So roughly half of, you have roughly a little off of 50-50 shot of somebody answering you if you call a law firm.
Is this about big law firms proper or just like law firms generally, middle size, small size?
Largely, they're calling small firms, but they're smalls and mids.
Which is kind of the Clio specialty there, right?
Which is kind of the Clio specialty.It's also true that there's just a lot more of them.And so when you're getting into the numbers, like 1,500 law firms, you've moved well beyond the MLaw 200.Sure.
There was a little bit more depth to it, which is that the consultants had worked out as part of crafting their requests, they had certain benchmarks for what the answer from the firm they expected to hear would be.
You know, saying, oh, you do have a case because of this or that, whatever.Just some substantive responses that they expected to have.They only got about 2% of law firms who were getting, hitting all the marks that they expected to hear.
Yeah, it was 27% in 2019.So it's a, major decline.And this is obviously a problem because people don't necessarily run to write reviews for lawyers, but they tend to when they get completely ignored.
And more to the point, even if they aren't writing a ton of reviews and squeaky wheels and all,
It does turn out that when you get a response over the phone, to the extent they do, they did some surveying and found that around 39% of customers become active promoters of you after that.
It's really in your benefit to answer the damn phone.
It's a striking amount of people who respond.With email, it's less.It's around 19%.But it is... really striking how much a client can become loyal and an evangelist for you if they feel like you've taken care of that.
People want to be listened to.I mean, fundamentally, the law is a client service industry.You have to cultivate that by just paying attention.That's like the bare minimum.
Hotels don't leave chocolates on the pillows because they like you.You know, they know the importance of having a good, you know, reputation in your mind.And as easy as it is to think about, oh, what I'm doing is this heady service.
You got to also cover just like the basic good bedside manner parts of being a firm.
One of the interesting findings of the study was if a lawyer says we're overwhelmed, we can't handle this, to what extent do AI chatbots have a role in helping out here?
And I think a lot of lawyers would say, well, it's better not even to call back than to have AI there.But as it turns out, clients aren't actually all that offended by it.The numbers were that
clients were pretty cool dealing with a chatbot for an initial contact, assuming it was made clear that a human was going to be there eventually.And that can be a way to really automate a lot of this.
And even if you don't want the chatbot because you think that doesn't, for your clientele, you think that might be a problem, there are other automated ways to like fill out this form with everything and we'll get back to you that can really
streamline the process.The clients don't find off-putting.They find it normal to do that.And if that's what you need to do in order to not seem like you've dropped a touch, then that's probably what you should invest in.
An important thing to remember about delegation is you don't have to delegate to a person that will do the job as good as you.If they can do it 70% as well, then it's worth delegating.It's better than zero.It's better than zero.
It's better to have something there that'll do it, especially if, like you said, eventually you'll get to it, then have nothing.
And, you know, and Jacqueline, who's their lawyer in residence, who always at Clio is gives the presentation on this particular report.You know, he also raised virtual receptionist services.Those do exist.
There are a ton of technology out there that really can help with this.
Yeah, well, and Clio's product can help with the automated intake.These virtual receptionist services exist where you can just hire somebody who answers your phone for you.
And because, you know, in a central banking situation with specific scripts that respond to what you want, just so that the intake happens before you then can do your job, you can make sure that that's happening.
And yeah, if you're a solo, sometimes you can't answer the phone.You're in court, and they've locked it up somewhere.That's fine.But somebody has to still be there to take the call.You can get it back later.
And it will help you in the long term.
Yeah.So that story was a big one last week, which I thought was great.And you know, it's always heartening when these tech stories strike a nerve with our audience, because not everybody in our audience loves tech as much as I do.
So it was good when that happens. Alright, well I think that's it.Thanks everybody for joining us.You should subscribe to the show so you get new episodes every time they drop.You should leave reviews, write something, stars, all of that helps.
You should be reading above the law because that way you read these and other stories before they come out.You can follow us on social media, it's at atlblog, at josephpatrice, at katherine1, at rightsforrent.
You can hit me on, you have to sum us on blue sky too, I'm just Joe Patrice over there, I shortened it.You should be listening to the Jabo, Katherine's other podcast.
I'm also a guest on the Legal Tech Week Journalist Roundtable, which we did live at CleoCon this year.Fancy.Yeah, so.How was it? It was great, really well done show.
It's not up yet, I don't think, because they edit the video and everything there, but it'll be up soon.So that was exciting.We're going to do it again at ABA Tech Show, it sounds like.So we're going to make this a whole thing.
And you should also check out the other shows on the Legal Talk Network.And with all of that said, we're done.Peace.Bye.Peace.
If you're a lawyer running a solo or small firm and you're looking for other lawyers to talk through issues you're currently facing in your practice, join the Unbillable Hours Community Roundtable, a free virtual event on the third Thursday of every month.
Lawyers from all over the country come together and meet with me, lawyer and law firm management consultant Christopher T. Anderson, to discuss best practices on topics such as marketing, client acquisition, hiring and firing, and time management.
The conversation is free to join, but requires a simple reservation.The link to RSVP can be found on the unbillable hour page at LegalTalkNetwork.com.We'll see you there.
Sign in
