<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (JordanFurlong)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from JordanFurlong</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legaltechnologyhub.com/contents/the-innovators-dilemma-why-existing-legal-ai-platforms-structurally-cannot-solve-the-activation-gap-from-inside/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9xnKZg8hC22YKXtI4SFKSZvxgyCkIiZkaSscN0RrVNsGrQW6F6DBSqqnfu6bdPZEkJXpHFUgqtX0XqtdJTSTcaEcQtfQ&amp;_hsmi=424979656"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://abovethelaw.com/2026/04/clearyx-bets-that-biglaw-disruption-is-inevitable/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://davidoks.blog/p/why-the-atm-didnt-kill-bank-teller"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.lawnext.com/2026/02/arizona-republic-investigation-finds-consumer-harm-loopholes-and-conflicts-of-interest-in-arizonas-legal-regulatory-reform.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legaltechnologyhub.com/contents/ai-native-law-firms-and-the-innovators-dilemma-a-fabric-change-signal-for-the-legal-industry/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_60WJvFsl9ukB70oX--JWpyf-cBgdBVS_Vjw422A83TkJSzU9wZYINgq3a4QK8A1kWDABL2cBcmtychOVwDnVgtzQI3g&amp;_hsmi=403455607"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="file:///Users/jordanfurlong/Downloads/Kronblad%20et%20al%202023%20Difficulties%20to%20digitalize-%20ambidexterity%20challenges%20in%20law%20firms.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ft.com/content/029f714e-8d94-4a79-b265-9c3b97bcb79e"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://substack.com/inbox/post/170631529?r=1abpu&amp;showWelcomeOnShare=true&amp;triedRedirect=true"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://bos.etapestry.com/prod/viewEmailAsPage.do?erRef=1098.0.545303714&amp;databaseId=InstitutefortheAdvancementoft&amp;mailingId=47781280&amp;jobRef=1098.0.1119452365&amp;key=fd60c953cde8121262e322ef9f7e&amp;personaRef=1098.0.545303716&amp;memberId=1600896348"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/2345422"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://undark.org/2025/03/06/opinion-science-adapt/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2025/02/27/kpmg-launches-us-law-firm-after-landing-arizona-approval/?kw=KPMG%25252520Launches%25252520U.S.%25252520Law%25252520Firm%25252520After%25252520Landing%25252520Arizona%25252520Approval&amp;utm_position=2&amp;slreturn=20250301182051"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/associate-news/lawyers-impatient-for-firms-to-invest-in-technology-and-innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/deepseek-ai-investment-tech/681516/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://download.ssrn.com/2024/11/20/4981622.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&amp;X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEDcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQCkSNpGxNL7Rf%2BZ%2BOekwXdkKcar4m%2BLARTYDkc%2BljKZVQIgDdf1qiPCVDJC5Gfyy3MAx%2FVpbMMcNeiRxNz3ZU5C1nUqvQUILxAEGgwzMDg0NzUzMDEyNTciDMSbeME30Qd4xNCdRCqaBWKDCmnhLTNKYweLJ7rJhNG1WiQ2gG866P5ZZMtslM%2BQEFwF239fgfbw0O6U5rfDcrcj2bMj7RN02mwBuL9WWEYbHifCOXIfbbY3ibLr2n6XmygE%2FJfa0YhyC3IjoT2bPa6cWTstMd45To5XUD8F5wt0157GhzANUwGXX6qYzSaqAoRvLfU6rQow7Ba%2Bl4kgQVFPXGky5Lvq9ifz3jdx32plJTRZQJDen80I4chCGJlKiEkZ3w8AlCFG3dSqpbWYGGz7knTeL3ZbWCcw7Nw9pfzbVgcDCT%2Bb6WzQ%2FURL7RFN1M8l%2F5sSvuT2FFydsJ6xgiWjKN69hz9GKkpVOMtZetvnWs%2FaRFQJDFZ0Ne1XomFAHso773wq1wThrB6AFoNWa%2F7wCMNXQ7NWg1QPDpR%2Bzd14mONAwB7D3ODdQ%2BdQuGV5JcNVzJhDxr8gEz%2FGDM5MoUFzXOWyGN7B0WHadTUTgA%2F15IY13PjTL9JVHK01AWy7%2FiWu104AzwExS%2BRoRxiqOHG5dY3RpwHunWPHf8NFx5T%2FtcEZAeGDHseq1Tl%2B0qsYFacenVbEsiHx7ajWKZFYiUTMis2k6DDNSEr%2BKRzVmWJTYwoZ3lIvOtkPNlGodjLoIIQNg0Gp%2FUBJwwcz4LvFIN1YLQIT3hFOazUmssyzTwEMhYIm%2FZRYAJe19k7KrEM%2BgHQu%2BZh%2B9xsmPdXRitOFds%2BVAHHjTAbz%2Bu8KSwb6BgVVnRH9ePAixSuqprvpqOnGfgCEqBB0gtYlzMgBRHHt5E%2Bm%2BM4VevLoixSL9zBLQtsd6x%2BiZ5AZAcl9eODiR8u4QjWkgrnIqD68TlUqSOWk1oxVw1YE7Nw8C%2F2J4%2FGLK4k36Z7OWuHTw%2Fe38ABgNIxbOQZFryOt0cq0oTD7hZ%2B8BjqxATvhkIeom%2BKyPpujDpiW2wR%2BwkpW69BxoMWLZnVRpv%2FKZjeL5vkbR6xzwclACSMYWc2gMKLXXo48ID2021V67xmvXMdYXsZ1dkpqD7TRZrIWykn6bSciYD5U0HR5CFwhUO%2F%2FB7PhbkCbkTMoSswVtoJk9C%2BYJkg3dr2CzrjFXoq00UTHLl7fInWfUAOV%2FBsmrDzxahgDED3iptOHn0%2FPpTBlg5ANHCrCjwDLIBXiCzR95g%3D%3D&amp;X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&amp;X-Amz-Date=20250115T150604Z&amp;X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&amp;X-Amz-Expires=300&amp;X-Amz-Credential=ASIAUPUUPRWEZEGX2KR5%2F20250115%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&amp;X-Amz-Signature=6f12ccface029aa70c1635b837c4d2b84ad89f526e3a0e5e5eb72b506a615910&amp;abstractId=4981622"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2024/10/30/could-ai-investments-be-another-driver-of-law-firm-mergers/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2024/11/04/its-the-end-of-the-legal-industry-as-we-know-it/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2024/10/22/top-firms-dont-fear-genai-but-others-do-pwc-survey/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://info.persuit.com/reports/law-firm-ai-maturity-index-survey"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1846778"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.ibj.com/articles/indiana-supreme-court-forms-commission-to-address-attorney-shortage"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://iaals.du.edu/blog/simplifying-divorce-informal-domestic-relations-trials"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.anildash.com//2024/05/29/systems-the-purpose-of-a-system/?ref=ideasurplusdisorder.com"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ey-reveals-redundancies-as-legal-disruptor-set-to-close/5118120.article"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://abovethelaw.com/2023/11/omg-china-has-actual-legal-robots-and-all-the-legal-tech-patents/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://legaltechnology.com/2023/09/25/gowling-wlg-rolls-out-disputes-decision-theory-tool-eperoto-across-its-canadian-offices/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2023/08/25/davis-wrights-gen-ai-chatbot-is-fostering-collaboration/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2023/06/09/head-of-mishcon-de-reyas-incubator-discusses-product-defensibility-in-age-of-gen-ai/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1682740?nl_pk=668add9d-2dd6-4fcb-b0c7-e53f7c48df21&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=3"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2023/05/26/hogan-lovells-launches-eltemate-a-tech-subsidiary-combining-lawyers-engineers-ai-specialists/?kw=Hogan%2520Lovells%2520Launches%2520ELTEMATE%252C%2520a%2520Tech%2520Subsidiary%2520Combining%2520Lawyers%252C%2520Engineers%252C%2520AI%2520Specialists&amp;oly_enc_id="/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.slaw.ca/2023/02/14/serving-the-needs-of-the-many/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1583756?nl_pk=dda49094-7ba2-4eb8-95fb-0894d732b44b&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=2"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://thestarphoenix-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/steven-lewis-ottawa-wants-its-health-care-dollars-to-make-a-difference-heres-a-suggestion/wcm/b96bb8fc-95e2-4c75-8502-8ef92261a15d/amp/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law360.com/access-to-justice/articles/1566371"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legalevolution.org/2022/10/learning-about-law-firms-part-iii-innovation-at-everybody-else-firms-335/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/sports/tennis/business-australian-open.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&amp;referringSource=articleShare"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1566861?nl_pk=dda49094-7ba2-4eb8-95fb-0894d732b44b&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=3"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_900972_smxx.pdf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2022/12/15/chatgpt-is-impressive-but-can-and-should-it-be-used-in-legal/?kw=ChatGPT%2520Is%2520Impressive%252C%2520But%2520Can%2520%2528and%2520Should%2529%2520It%2520Be%2520Used%2520in%2520Legal%3F"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/will-chatgpt-make-lawyers-obsolete-hint-be-afraid-2022-12-09/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://willamette.edu/news/library/2022/12/attorney-licensure-story.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/2022/11/09/dwf-deal-first-of-its-kind-in-canadian-legal-market-292-134563/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/resources/practice-management/publicly-traded-dwf-buys-whitelaw-twining-amid-strict-rules-on-ownership-delivery-of-legal-services/371376"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legalevolution.org/2022/10/the-high-highs-and-low-lows-of-legal-regulatory-reform-334/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/2022/09/08/the-law-firm-disrupted-meet-the-first-business-law-boutique-owned-by-non-lawyers/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://abovethelaw.com/2022/07/is-the-problem-with-partnerships-the-partnership/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2022/06/27/personal-injury-technology-provider-to-take-on-its-own-clients/?kw=Personal%2520Injury%2520Technology%2520Provider%2520to%2520Take%2520on%2520Its%2520Own%2520Clients"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/australian-law-firm-targets-uk-smes-with-unlimited-subscription-service"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legalevolution.org/2022/06/the-commons-law-center-a-unique-and-promising-business-model-for-peoplelaw-311/#more-17433"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/02/09/this-boutique-is-ditching-the-path-to-partnership-and-the-billable-hour-adopting-a-new-profit-sharing-model/?cmp=share_twitter"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/government-to-pilot-publicly-funded-early-legal-advice"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/initiatives/access-to-justice/future-of-legal-services/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/america-innovation-film-science-business/620858/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2021/12/08/innovation-averse-law-schools-risk-missing-out-on-the-legal-industrys-regulatory-renaissance/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.suffolk.edu/law/academics-clinics/juris-doctor/hybrid-online-jd"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/legalzoom-gets-green-light-for-arizona-non-lawyer-owned-services"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/10/01/legalzoom-gets-green-light-to-hire-attorneys-in-arizona/?kw=LegalZoom%2520Gets%2520Green%2520Light%2520to%2520Hire%2520Attorneys%2520in%2520Arizona"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/scotland-mulls-single-regulator-for-all-lawyers"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.lawtechuk.io/explore"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/mishcon-de-reya-to-list-and-more-firms-are-set-to-follow"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/coronavirus-pandemic-ventilation-rethinking-air/620000/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/08/03/hybrid-arbitrations-how-to-avoid-procedural-pitfalls/?kw=Hybrid%2520Arbitrations%3A%2520How%2520to%2520Avoid%2520Procedural%2520Pitfalls"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://stephenmayson.com/2021/07/26/is-the-biglaw-business-model-sustainable/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2021/07/diy-platform-hello-divorce-raises-2m-to-fuel-national-expansion.html"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://msmagazine.com/2021/07/23/immigration-court-lawyer-viista-help-migrants-become-an-accredited-representative/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-calls-for-state-to-withdraw-from-the-uniform-bar-exam/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/06/30/legalzoom-hits-nasdaq-with-more-than-19-million-shares-at-28-a-share/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fa337150-9cdc-41ff-b475-343bf2365c5e"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/indiana-still-resistant-to-nonlawyer-firm-ownership?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_56b5b863e783f5accd29d1dd741e664e6b6ba2a3-1626964865-0-gqNtZGzNAiKjcnBszQx6"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://stephenmayson.com/2021/07/19/regulation-from-infection-to-inflection-point/#more-4057"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://www.legaltechnologyhub.com/contents/the-innovators-dilemma-why-existing-legal-ai-platforms-structurally-cannot-solve-the-activation-gap-from-inside/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9xnKZg8hC22YKXtI4SFKSZvxgyCkIiZkaSscN0RrVNsGrQW6F6DBSqqnfu6bdPZEkJXpHFUgqtX0XqtdJTSTcaEcQtfQ&amp;_hsmi=424979656">
    <title>The Innovator’s Dilemma: Why Existing Legal AI Platforms Structurally Cannot Solve the Activation Gap from Inside | Legaltech Hub</title>
    <dc:date>2026-06-22T21:27:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legaltechnologyhub.com/contents/the-innovators-dilemma-why-existing-legal-ai-platforms-structurally-cannot-solve-the-activation-gap-from-inside/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9xnKZg8hC22YKXtI4SFKSZvxgyCkIiZkaSscN0RrVNsGrQW6F6DBSqqnfu6bdPZEkJXpHFUgqtX0XqtdJTSTcaEcQtfQ&amp;_hsmi=424979656</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[When Clayton Christensen published The Innovator’s Dilemma in 1997, he was describing a pattern that had already played out in disk drives, mini-computers, and steel. A successful incumbent, calibrated to a particular customer and a particular margin structure, meets a new technology that is worse on the dimensions its customers currently care about but better on a different set. The incumbent dismisses it, reasonably, because in its customers’ terms it is worse. By the time the new technology is good enough to compete on the old dimensions, it has taken the market from underneath.

Something close to that pattern is now visible in legal AI. What is striking is how clearly the people involved can see it, and how little the constraints bend even so. 

The Pressure from Below and Above 
The incumbents here are the existing legal AI platforms: the CLM vendors, contract intelligence tools, e-billing systems, and document automation built over the last decade around the in-house function and the firms working with it. Most are well funded, well built, and led by capable people. None is in obvious trouble. Several are still growing quickly. 

The pressure from below is the autopilot-native services category: firms pricing for the outcome rather than the seat and taking the lawyer out of the loop for a narrow band of work. By the platforms’ standards, they look small, and their output is occasionally rough. The pressure from above is the foundation model providers. Anthropic launched Claude for Legal in May 2026 with practice-area plugins and a set of connectors into legal software, and OpenAI and Google are pushing in parallel. By the platforms’ standards, those legal offerings are early and partial. 

The classic incumbent response to both is that they are not really doing what we do. That is, for now, true. It is also more or less what Christensen says incumbents say shortly before the ground moves. 

Why Neither Side Can Be Defended from Inside 
The reason the platforms cannot defend either side is not that they are slow, or under-resourced, or blind to the threat. It is that the moves which would count as defending themselves are the same moves that would destroy the business paying the bills today. Defending against the autopilot-natives means selling outcomes, which means selling work the platforms’ own customers currently do. The channel walks. The comp plans, the partner networks, and the success functions are all calibrated to the customer doing the existing work. To go that way, a platform has to be willing to compete with the people it sells to. 

Defending against the foundation model providers means owning more of the operating layer beneath the model, which is exactly the activation work most platforms have left to others. The product was always a workflow on top of someone else’s intelligence; now the intelligence is starting to do the workflow too. Moving down into the operating layer is the defensive move. It is not where most platforms are built to sit today. The model providers will reach for some of that work as well; what they cannot easily reach is its deployment inside a specific enterprise, against a specific team’s playbooks, which is a services problem rather than a model problem. 

Each move is rational on its own. Together they ask a platform to do the thing almost no incumbent in Christensen’s casebook has done well: cannibalise the high-margin seat business that funds the company now, in order to stand up a lower-margin services business that might fund it in five years. Boards rarely approve that. Sales orgs rarely execute it. The investors who backed the current trajectory rarely reward it. 

The Honest Caveat 
I want to be careful not to overstate this. The Christensen framework is descriptive, not deterministic; patterns are patterns, not prophecies. There is a version of the next few years in which the autopilot-natives plateau, the model providers are pulled into larger markets, and the platforms ride the cycle out with their core intact. 

But the question every platform CEO is now being asked by their board, in one form or another, is the same. What is our answer on the autopilot-natives? On Claude for Legal? On why NRR is not expanding and renewals are getting harder? The improvements most platforms can reach for, a sharper roadmap, a bigger success team, a tuned sales motion, are real, but they are not answers to a disruption pattern. The pattern asks for a different operating model, not a better version of the current one. 

That is the trap. The companies that built the current legal AI market are, by construction, the least free to operate the next one, because operating it would mean becoming a different kind of company, and no company is naturally good at becoming a different kind of company. 

The One Move that Remains 
There is one move that does not require that. A platform can bring in a partner to operate the layer it cannot afford to build inside, on a commercial structure that aligns the partner’s economics with the platform’s rather than competing with them. That partner takes the work budget the autopilot-natives are reaching for, and the activation work the model providers will try to reach for, and runs both under the platform’s brand, in a single contract with the customer. 

The platform CEOs thinking clearly about this are landing in the same place. The dilemma is not soluble from inside the platform alone. The answer has to come from outside, in a shape no current consultancy, ALSP, or services firm offers by default. Telon is built to be that partner. 

The next essay is about what that partner has to look like, and why none of the categories already in the market produces it. 

For now, the observation is simple enough. The platforms are facing the textbook innovator’s dilemma in real time. The ones that find a way to bring the answer in from outside, before the pressure from below and above closes in, will be the ones that compound. The ones that do not will end up as the case studies everyone later claims were obvious.]]></description>
<dc:subject>ai innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:248774d1bd72/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:ai"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://abovethelaw.com/2026/04/clearyx-bets-that-biglaw-disruption-is-inevitable/">
    <title>ClearyX Bets That Biglaw Disruption Is Inevitable - Above the Law</title>
    <dc:date>2026-05-15T18:39:45+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://abovethelaw.com/2026/04/clearyx-bets-that-biglaw-disruption-is-inevitable/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[For all the Biglaw posturing about “leaning into AI,” the tasks that AI is best suited to perform are tasks where clients really don’t need outside counsel pushing the button. Whatever the tool, clients will find a product capable of moving expensive yet automatable work in-house. Trying to cling to that business over the next few years will just end in massive write-downs, frustrated clients, and damaged relationships. With ClearyX, the firm continues to profit from the natural migration of that work while doubling down on the tasks outside counsel have to perform. And even though ClearyX is a separate entity and not necessarily tied to Cleary’s existing client base, it offers a warmer handoff if a client using a product developed by the Cleary brand eventually needs to hire human outside counsel for higher level work.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>firm ai innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:b64898d19647/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firm"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:ai"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://davidoks.blog/p/why-the-atm-didnt-kill-bank-teller">
    <title>(3) Why ATMs didn’t kill bank teller jobs, but the iPhone did</title>
    <dc:date>2026-04-16T20:35:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://davidoks.blog/p/why-the-atm-didnt-kill-bank-teller</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[But why? Why did the ATM, literally called the automated teller machine, not automate the teller, while an entirely orthogonal technology—the iPhone—actually did?

The answer, I think, is complementarity.

In my last piece, on why I don’t think imminent mass job loss from AI is likely, I talked a lot about complementarity. The core point I made was that labor substitution is about comparative advantage, not absolute advantage: the relevant question for labor impacts is not whether AI can do the tasks that humans can do, but rather whether the aggregate output of humans working with AI is inferior to what AI can produce alone. And I suggested that given the vast number of frictions and bottlenecks that exist in any human domain—domains that are, after all, defined around human labor in all its warts and eccentricities, with workflows designed around humans in mind—we should expect to see a serious gap between the incredible power of the technology and its impacts on economic life.

That gap will probably close faster than previous gaps did: AI is not “like” electricity or the steam engine; an AI system is literally a machine that can think and do things itself. But the gap exists, and will exist even as the technology continues to amaze us with what it can now accomplish.]]></description>
<dc:subject>future innovation ai</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:7a43fb0e158d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:future"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:ai"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.lawnext.com/2026/02/arizona-republic-investigation-finds-consumer-harm-loopholes-and-conflicts-of-interest-in-arizonas-legal-regulatory-reform.html">
    <title>Arizona Republic Investigation Finds Consumer Harm, Loopholes, and Conflicts of Interest in Arizona's Legal Regulatory Reform | LawSites</title>
    <dc:date>2026-03-24T18:46:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.lawnext.com/2026/02/arizona-republic-investigation-finds-consumer-harm-loopholes-and-conflicts-of-interest-in-arizonas-legal-regulatory-reform.html</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[An in-depth investigation by The Arizona Republic has found that Arizona’s pioneering program allowing nonlawyers to own law firms — a reform long championed by access-to-justice advocates — has become riddled with consumer complaints, legal loopholes, financial conflicts of interest and inadequate oversight.

In a series of investigative articles, Republic journalist Laura Gersony paints a troubling picture of the state’s Alternative Business Structures program, which the Arizona Supreme Court approved in 2021 to allow nonlawyers to own law firms. The program was intended to make legal services cheaper and more accessible for Arizona residents. Instead, the Republic found, it has in many cases attracted profit-focused investors whose firms have generated a trail of consumer complaints across the country.

Related LawNext episode: Supreme Court Justice Ann Timmer on Arizona’s Sweeping Regulatory Reforms.

The findings present a sharp contrast to a comprehensive Stanford Law School study I reported on last June, which found “remarkably little evidence of consumer harm” from the Arizona reforms and similar reforms in Utah.

That study, by the Stanford Center on the Legal Profession, reported that through April 2025, Utah had only 20 consumer complaints across all sandbox entities, and that the two Arizona ABS entities that faced formal disciplinary action involved procedural and oversight issues rather than systematic consumer harm.

The Republic investigation, however, tells a different story, one focused on specific firms and the on-the-ground experiences of consumers rather than aggregate data.

Consumer Complaints and Misconduct
In the first installment of the series, “Arizona lets investors own law firms. Consumers pay the price,” Gersony reports that the ABS program has become an epicenter for consumer complaints, with clients across the United States saying they were mistreated, misled, or — in the words of a lawsuit against one firm — outright “scammed.”

The investigation found that more than a dozen licensees have been accused of harming their clients or violating consumer protction laws. Several licensees are accused of targeting vulnerable people, such as those in financial distress. Allegations range from illegal robo-calling to what Alabama prosecutors have called a deceptive scheme that “commoditized” car accident victims in one of the poorest states in the country.

The Republic also found significant conflicts of interest within the program’s oversight structure. Several members of the committee that advises the Supreme Court on each licensing decision also make money counseling the firms applying for the program. An ethics expert told the Republic’s reporter that they should step down.

Despite these issues, just two firms have received mild discipline, according to the Republic. One firm may lose its license, though the decision is not yet final, the Republic said.

Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Timmer stood by the program, Gersony reports, asserting that any reform will have both benefits and costs. She took issue with any suggestion that the court should do more to police misconduct by licensees.

“It’s unrealistic to think that we can monitor people all the time,” Timmer told the Republic. “We don’t have the capacity to do that.”

Out-of-State Spillover
In a second article, “Loopholes let Arizona law firm experiment spread nationwide,” Gersony reports on how the ABS program, which was intended to benefit Arizona residents, has effectively spread nationwide.

At least half of the Arizona licensees do business in other states, according to the Republic’s review. Only one-tenth of the firms specifically emphasize Arizona on their website or marketing materials. According to the Republic, firms are using their Arizona licenses to operate what are essentially nationwide practices, including some that function more like call centers, farming out cases across the country while doing little legal work themselves.

The article profiles reality TV star Joe Gorga of “Real Housewives of New Jersey,” who owns an Arizona-licensed personal injury firm that operates nationwide through billboards and advertising — despite having no connection to Arizona and not being a lawyer himself.

In Alabama, prosecutors are probing an Arizona-licensed firm’s connection with what they have called a deceptive scheme. In Texas, a woman settled with another Arizona firm she accused of clogging up her personal cell phone with illegal robo-calls and automated text messages. And in California, a federal judge accused a third licensed firm of trying to make a “quick buck” by luring authors out of a class-action settlement under misleading conditions.

Regulatory Response
In a third article, “Arizona Supreme Court may change law license rules after Republic investigation,” Gersony reports that the court is now moving to tighten rules in response to the investigation.

At a Feb. 10 meeting, court regulators backed changes that would tighten the ABS program. The proposed rules would restrict firms that operate as call centers and would clarify that the licenses are meant to benefit Arizona residents and companies.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes called the allegations in the Republic report “serious questions” that “warrant a greater conversation about oversight of the program so that Arizonans are not taken advantage of or otherwise defrauded by bad actors.”

Chief Justice Timmer acknowledged the program’s large out-of-state spillover and said she was uncomfortable with the way some firms have used their licenses. She also said she had already directed the court to consider whether the program should change its rules.

The chair of the oversight committee also proposed a new, draft rule that would require the licensees to “at least in part” benefit Arizona people and companies.

The Stanford Study: A Different Lens
The Republic’s findings seem at odds with the Stanford study I covered last June, Legal Innovation After Reform: Five Years of Data on Regulatory Change.

That study, authored by David Freeman Engstrom, Natalie A. Knowlton and Lucy Ricca, represented the most comprehensive empirical analysis to date of Arizona’s and Utah’s legal regulatory reforms. It found remarkably low rates of consumer complaints and concluded that concerns about nonlawyer ownership compromising legal quality or professional standards had not materialized in any systematic way.

The Stanford researchers reported a harm-to-service ratio in Utah of approximately 1:5,869 based on reported legal services delivered. In Arizona, the two ABS entities that faced formal disciplinary action involved procedural and oversight issues, not systematic consumer harm.

One explanation for these seemingly conflicting findings is that the Stanford study focused primarily on formal complaints filed through official channels and aggregate data, while the Republic investigation used more traditional “shoe leather” techniques of interviewing affected consumers, reviewing court records and examining business practices in detail.

Asked about the Republic series, Natalie Knowlton, one of the Stanford researchers, said this:

“Our methodology in the Legal Innovation After Reform research series involved reviews of initial application materials (from the Arizona ABS program and Utah regulatory sandbox) along with – specific to the consumer harm piece – publicly available information from regulators in the two states. In Arizona, that available information is published disciplinary orders against ABS entities and ABS compliance lawyers. As we note in our latest report, published in June 2025, an important empirical question is whether these innovations are resulting in unacceptable harm to legal consumers. Allegations of consumer harm should be taken seriously, whether resulting from actions of ABS law firms and their lawyers or non-ABS law firms and their lawyers. But I have yet to see any data on the question of whether consumers experience harm by ABS law firms at a higher rate than they do by non-ABS law firms.”

It is, of course, also possible that both accounts are simultaneously true — that the overall rate of formal complaints remains low relative to the total volume of services, while at the same time specific firms are engaging in practices that cause real harm to individual consumers. Notably, the Stanford study flagged the concentration of Arizona ABS entities in personal injury and mass tort practice areas as an emerging concern — precisely the area where the Republic found the most troubling behavior.

A Crucial Moment for Legal Reform
Still, the Republic investigation arrives at a time when the topic of legal regulatory reform is being debated nationwide. As the Stanford study documented, Arizona’s program has grown significantly from 19 authorized entities in 2022 to 136 as of April 2025. Other states have been watching Arizona closely as they consider their own reform efforts.

The investigation does not necessarily argue against regulatory reform, but it raises important questions about the adequacy of oversight mechanisms, the need for consumer protections, and whether Arizona’s particular approach — with its lack of geographic restrictions on where licensed firms can operate — is best model.

Photo of Bob AmbrogiBob Ambrogi
Bob is a lawyer, veteran legal journalist, and award-winning blogger and podcaster. In 2011, he was named to the inaugural Fastcase 50, honoring “the law’s smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries and leaders.” Earlier in his career, he was editor-in-chief of several legal publications, including The National Law Journal, and editorial director of ALM’s Litigation Services Division.

PRESS RELEASES
prev
next
slide 2 of 5

 Mar 16, 2026
Ai Built For Law Outperforms ChatGPT, Claude, And Gemini On Legal Reasoning Benchmark

 Mar 17, 2026
[Watch] Benchly and Servient form Joint Venture to Introduce legalgain, the first AI-native Legal Research Platform

 Mar 16, 2026
Billables AI Named “Legal Tech Company of the Year” at 2026 Legalweek Awards

 Mar 16, 2026
Litera Partners with Midpage to Embed Legal Research in Legal Agent Lito, as Benchmark Study Highlights Power of Combined LLM with Rules-Based Engines

 Mar 16, 2026
Legion Expands AI Platform to Full Motion Practice Following Massive ROI for Existing Users

 Mar 16, 2026
Ai Built For Law Outperforms ChatGPT, Claude, And Gemini On Legal Reasoning Benchmark

 Mar 17, 2026
[Watch] Benchly and Servient form Joint Venture to Introduce legalgain, the first AI-native Legal Research Platform
Advertisement for PracticePanther
Robert J. Ambrogi

Bob Ambrogi is a lawyer and journalist who has been writing and speaking about legal technology and innovation for more than two decades. He writes the award-winning blog LawSites, is a columnist for Above the Law, hosts the podcast about legal innovation, LawNext, and hosts the weekly legal tech journalists' roundtable, Legaltech Week.

Read More....
Stay Connected
Email RSS
Facebook Icon
Twitter Icon
LinkedIn Icon

Subscribe to our Weekly Digest
Receive a weekly digest of all new content.

Email
Subscribe
Topics
Topics
Select Category
Archives
Archives
Select Month
Recent Posts
LawNext on Location: Visiting Everlaw’s Headquarters For A Conversation with AJ Shankar, Founder and CEO
Sixth Circuit Slaps Steep Sanctions on Two Lawyers for Fake Citations and Misrepresentations in Appellate Briefs
Aderant Adds AI-Powered Performance Evaluation Tools to Its vi Talent Management Suite
Pro Bono Net, the A2J Technology Pioneer, Rebrands As 'Scale Justice' to Reflect Its Evolving Mission
Another Podcast with Clio Founder Jack Newton? Yep, But This Time, It's Him Interviewing Me In My Seaside Hometown
Footer
 Disclaimer Privacy Policy
ABOUT LAW SITES
LawSites is a blog covering legal technology and innovation. It is written by Robert Ambrogi, a lawyer and journalist who has been writing and speaking about legal technology, legal practice and legal ethics for more than two decades.]]></description>
<dc:subject>access innovation abs ethics</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:87b6bbb2fb69/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:ethics"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.legaltechnologyhub.com/contents/ai-native-law-firms-and-the-innovators-dilemma-a-fabric-change-signal-for-the-legal-industry/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_60WJvFsl9ukB70oX--JWpyf-cBgdBVS_Vjw422A83TkJSzU9wZYINgq3a4QK8A1kWDABL2cBcmtychOVwDnVgtzQI3g&amp;_hsmi=403455607">
    <title>AI-Native Law Firms and the Innovator’s Dilemma: A Fabric-Change Signal for the Legal Industry | Legaltech Hub</title>
    <dc:date>2026-02-23T17:36:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legaltechnologyhub.com/contents/ai-native-law-firms-and-the-innovators-dilemma-a-fabric-change-signal-for-the-legal-industry/?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_60WJvFsl9ukB70oX--JWpyf-cBgdBVS_Vjw422A83TkJSzU9wZYINgq3a4QK8A1kWDABL2cBcmtychOVwDnVgtzQI3g&amp;_hsmi=403455607</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Over the past eighteen months, a new phrase has moved rapidly from the margins of legal-tech discourse into the mainstream: the rise of the “AI-native law firm.” Like “NewLaw” before it, the term is elastic and at risk of overuse. But beneath the hype sits a more consequential question—one that goes to the heart of how legal services are structured and how they may evolve.

Are AI-native and AI-first firms simply another iteration of boutique experimentation, or are they early manifestations of the kind of disruptive force Clayton Christensen described in The Innovator’s Dilemma? When viewed through that lens, these firms look less like curiosities and more like early fabric-change signals—indicators that the underlying architecture of the legal market may be beginning to shift in ways incumbent firms are structurally ill-prepared to respond to.

The Rise of AI-Native and AI-First Firms  
 
Although the concept has been discussed for years, the phenomenon of truly AI-native firms is recent. Between 2024 and 2026, fifteen to twenty firms launched globally with models that place AI at the center of legal service delivery. They fall loosely into two categories: AI-native and AI-first. 

We define AI-native firms as those in which AI is part of the client-facing output. They include:

The SRA-authorized Garfield.Law in the United Kingdom;  
US-based Crosby, which touts itself as an “Agentic Law Firm” offering contract reviews with turnaround times measured in hours;  
Covenant, which focuses on private-markets documentation;  
Norm Law LLP, a firm built alongside the Norm AI platform;  
Eudia Counsel, authorized under Arizona’s ABS regime; and  
Landfall IP, a patent boutique founded explicitly as an AI-native practice.  
Some firms sit slightly to the side of the traditional partnership model, such as Virgil, an AI-enabled legal and operational services hybrid for startups, and Frontier Law Center, which has positioned itself as the first firm built atop the Eve AI platform. 

Alongside these stand a second group of AI-first boutiques. These firms are not necessarily AI-native in their regulatory or ownership structures, but their operating models are heavily shaped by AI. They include:

Pierson Ferdinand, a partner-only firm with no associates and a strong commitment to AI-mediated workflows;  
Three Points Law in the UK, built around the Legora platform;  
Avantia, which has developed an internal AI agent (Ava) to support corporate and asset-management work; and  
Several IP-focused practices that have embraced AI-driven drafting and automation.  
Sprintlaw, the Australian SME-focused firm founded years earlier, also made a significant AI-driven transformation in 2025 that reshaped its internal architecture and economics. 

In 2026, five additional AI law firms have come out of stealth, including AI-native firms General Legal, Arcline, LegalOS, Justpoint, and AI-first boutique FairPlay Law. This influx of new AI law firms in the early part of this year represents a steep uptick in this kind of activity in the market. It also indicates a shift in the market towards AI-native and beyond AI-enhanced boutique, with most of these structurally embedding AI in their infrastructure and output.  

We’re also seeing developments in terms of who is running these firms and how they play in the market. General Legal, for example, has a founding team of former Thomson Reuters and Casetext leaders. FairPLay Law was founded by Sanjay Kamlani, formerly of Pangea3 (which was acquired by Thomson Reuters in 2010). These are experienced tech founders who have now turned to running AI-native law firms, suggesting they will take a tech-first approach.  
 
Three of these new firms (General Legal, Arcline, and LegalOS) are in the Winter 2026 cohort of Y Combinator (YC), another indication that these firms are establishing themselves as tech startups (with a side of legal services). The only previous law firm to have been part of a YC cohort was Atrium. Justpoint was approved as an Alternative Business Structure (ABS) by the Arizona Supreme Court prior to launching this year, the first AI-native mass tort firm to gain this status, with Eudia Counsel also previously earning ABS status.  

All of these signals suggest a new playing field. Unlike NewLaw firms of the past, many of these AI-native firms intend to operate in the market like technology companies.

While it’s true the total list of AI law firms is still small relative to the global legal market, its significance lies less in its scale and more in its pattern. These firms are emerging where regulatory environments allow for experimentation (the SRA in England and Wales; Arizona’s ABS regime) or in ecosystems where venture-backed AI companies sit adjacent to legal work. A meaningful subset of these new entrants is also enabled by legal AI platforms that have matured to the point where their founders see an opportunity to deliver legal services directly.  

That adjacency – technology company on one side, law firm on the other – is not entirely new, and readers will rightly recall the experience of Atrium, the high-profile legal startup founded in 2017 that ultimately shut down in 2020. Atrium’s failure is often cited as evidence that “tech plus law firm” is a flawed proposition. But that reading misses the more instructive lesson. Atrium was, in many respects, early and directionally correct: it identified genuine inefficiencies in how legal services were delivered to startups and recognized that software could play a central role in rethinking the model, but it underestimated the degree to which legal services are shaped by professional norms, trust, risk allocation, and law firm economics. Its product and service model was insufficiently grounded in how legal work is actually valued, purchased, and regulated. 

What distinguishes the current wave of AI-native and AI-first firms is not simply better technology, but greater alignment between technical capability, legal expertise, and market reality. Today’s entrants are more likely to be founded or led by experienced lawyers, or by teams that have invested heavily in understanding legal workflows and incentives. At the same time, generative AI has crossed a threshold at which it can credibly perform substantive portions of legal work, not just workflow management or document assembly. Atrium may have been early; today’s firms are operating in a context where the same thesis has a far greater chance of holding. 

So, is the rise of AI-native firms hype? No. The cohort remains small, but its shape is coherent and its attributes consistent. This is not noise. It is an early trendline.]]></description>
<dc:subject>ai-first innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:109edc6f4eff/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:ai-first"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="file:///Users/jordanfurlong/Downloads/Kronblad%20et%20al%202023%20Difficulties%20to%20digitalize-%20ambidexterity%20challenges%20in%20law%20firms.pdf">
    <title>Difficulties to digitalize: ambidexterity challenges in law firm</title>
    <dc:date>2025-12-05T17:17:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>file:///Users/jordanfurlong/Downloads/Kronblad%20et%20al%202023%20Difficulties%20to%20digitalize-%20ambidexterity%20challenges%20in%20law%20firms.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Purpose – This paper aims to understand what prevents established law firms from embracing digitalization
and discusses barriers to solving the emerging ambidexterity problem. Law firms have been organized in the
same way for decades. However, digital opportunities are emerging and new competitors are challenging
established firms. This presents established law firms with an ambidexterity problem: How can law firms
simultaneously uphold their successful way of working while entering a new world of digitalization, artificial
intelligence (AI) and machine learning?
Design/methodology/approach – Previous research suggests that law firms are slow in digital transformation,
compared to other Professional Service Firms (PSFs). In this paper, the authors explore why this happens. Interview
data from representatives in law firms are complemented with data from architects as well as legal industry data and
field notes. The data have been analyzed to spot patterns and emerging themes.
Findings – The authors find that established law firms face structural and cultural barriers to applying
ambidextrous solutions. When comparing law firms with architecture firms, the authors see that while
established architecture firms have combined digital exploration with ongoing exploitation, established law
firms have focused on exploitation, leaving digital exploration to new legal tech firms. This difference can be
attributed to industry context and professional culture.
Originality/value – This paper shows that both structural and contextual ambidexterity is a challenge for
established law firms. This paper contributes to the understanding of barriers to embrace digital technology,
and supports practitioners in efforts to remove these barriers.
Keywords Ambidexterity, Digital exploration, Digitalization, La]]></description>
<dc:subject>firms innovation AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:eef65eabfe84/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ft.com/content/029f714e-8d94-4a79-b265-9c3b97bcb79e">
    <title>Business of Law: case studies</title>
    <dc:date>2025-12-05T16:51:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ft.com/content/029f714e-8d94-4a79-b265-9c3b97bcb79e</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The seven sets of case studies featured here showcase how law firms are innovating as businesses in Europe. They highlight law firms that are changing how they manage their people and how they are reinventing services and delivery models.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation firms management talent abs AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:d3afda522f4c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:management"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:talent"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://substack.com/inbox/post/170631529?r=1abpu&amp;showWelcomeOnShare=true&amp;triedRedirect=true">
    <title>Death of the Billable Hour: Legal's $900B AI Repricing</title>
    <dc:date>2025-08-28T14:57:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://substack.com/inbox/post/170631529?r=1abpu&amp;showWelcomeOnShare=true&amp;triedRedirect=true</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The legal industry represents one of the last great market inefficiencies in the modern economy. While every other sector discovered that speed and efficiency create competitive advantage, BigLaw built a $900 billion empire on the opposite insight: that scarcity and time consumption signal quality. They've trained clients to equate hours billed with value delivered, creating the only major industry where productivity gains threaten profitability.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>firms innovation AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:9034cc925df4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://bos.etapestry.com/prod/viewEmailAsPage.do?erRef=1098.0.545303714&amp;databaseId=InstitutefortheAdvancementoft&amp;mailingId=47781280&amp;jobRef=1098.0.1119452365&amp;key=fd60c953cde8121262e322ef9f7e&amp;personaRef=1098.0.545303716&amp;memberId=1600896348">
    <title>IAALS Unlocking Legal Regulation Newsletter</title>
    <dc:date>2025-06-13T20:10:17+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://bos.etapestry.com/prod/viewEmailAsPage.do?erRef=1098.0.545303714&amp;databaseId=InstitutefortheAdvancementoft&amp;mailingId=47781280&amp;jobRef=1098.0.1119452365&amp;key=fd60c953cde8121262e322ef9f7e&amp;personaRef=1098.0.545303716&amp;memberId=1600896348</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We are heading full steam into summer and our important work continues! Tomorrow, we will host our third webinar on Access to Justice, AI, and UPL in collaboration with our friends at the Duke Center on Law & Technology. You can view recordings of the first two webinars here. In the upcoming webinar we’ll explore actionable reforms and future directions based on the soon-to-be published IAALS report findings. A workshop series focused on developing model prosecutorial guidance policies will follow.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>regulation ethics licensure competence innovation paraprofessionals</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:2bd6248a0b88/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:ethics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:licensure"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:paraprofessionals"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/2345422">
    <title>Legal Reforms Leading To Different Results In Utah, Ariz. - Law360 Pulse</title>
    <dc:date>2025-06-03T15:03:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/2345422</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The top state courts in Arizona and Utah each implemented reforms allowing more companies and organizations to provide legal services that are leading to different results five years later, according to a study released Monday by Stanford Law School's Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession.

In 2020, Utah launched a regulatory sandbox to allow entities to practice law that traditionally wouldn't be permitted under the state's legal rules, and Arizona formally changed its legal rules to authorize alternative business structures, such as law firms owned by nonlawyers.

Five years later, Arizona has 136 approved ABS entities, while Utah has 11 sandbox participants, down from 39 in 2022, according to the report.

The report said that the Utah Supreme Court's tightening of sandbox eligibility requirements, including the addition of a new innovation rule, has led to a decreased number of participants in its program. The innovation rule requires entities to show they have an innovative service model with the potential to help underserved consumers.

"It is difficult to determine how much of Arizona's ABS market expansion is due to those initial design choices or, instead, might reflect a movement of companies from Utah to Arizona amidst Utah's contraction of its approach," the report said.


The report said that the status of ABS-only entities in Utah is murky, noting that the state's supreme court has provided partial waivers to these entities that didn't meet its new innovation requirement.

The waivers are currently valid until August 2027, but the Utah Supreme Court could revoke the waivers earlier or extend the waivers past this expiration date, according to the report.

"While Utah's contraction is plainly being driven by the Utah Supreme Court's policy decisions narrowing the scope of reform, the situation remains in a state of flux, making it hard to predict any future path," the report said.

The report found that the majority of ABS entities in Arizona continue to be traditional law firms, 10 out of 19 entities in 2022, and 87 out of 139 entities in 2025.

Neither of the legal reform programs in Arizona and Utah have many intermediary platform participants — three in Arizona and none in Utah, according to the report. Intermediary platforms are entities that serve two or more market players.

The report also found that legal reforms in Arizona and Utah are continuing to drive innovation with "little to no evidence" of consumer harm.

The center published a report in 2022 that also found the legal reforms in these states are fueling innovation without causing consumer harm.

"Arizona and Utah have shown that entity-focused efforts to liberalize legal services regulation can spur salutary legal innovation and widen access to justice across numerous legal areas, from torts to family law," the report said.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation abs regulation access</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:5db54988b71f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://undark.org/2025/03/06/opinion-science-adapt/">
    <title>How Science Can Adapt to a New Normal</title>
    <dc:date>2025-03-12T19:43:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://undark.org/2025/03/06/opinion-science-adapt/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Why has the public gutting of science not caused an immediate political backlash? The authors of the culling have correctly recognized that the public has no idea how science works and has no connection to scientists who aren’t on television. Note that the blame game is irrelevant here: I’m not saying that it’s scientists’ fault. We are doing the job we were trained to do, chasing the prizes that our mentors taught us to chase. In our new world, the expert who carefully engages science journalists and translates findings to our lesser-educated relatives will be just as valuable as the one who generates boatloads of data on the backs of a dozen overworked graduate students. This communicative aspect, now embodied in the science communication movement, must become a formal technical frontier of the scientific enterprise, and not patronizingly summarized as “outreach” or “activism.”

We aren’t lying if we complain that some of these activities aren’t what we were trained for. We spent our lives mastering the methods that allow us to uncover the mysteries of the natural world. My only retort is that such pearl-clutching may reveal that some of us weren’t cut out to be scientists in the first place. Because the truest test of scientific wits is agility; the ability to pivot on a dime. With impressive efficiency, we’ve built atomic bombs, cyclotrons, and mRNA vaccines. We’ve sequenced the genomes of thousands of species.

The good news is that what is required to reduce harm does not rely on developing the supply chain for a rare enzyme or securing taxpayer dollars for a new space station. The bad news is that it involves doing something that is just as ambitious: rethinking the very basics of what the job of a scientist is, why we do our jobs, and what it means to do them well.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation schools</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:4551e7adc377/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:schools"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2025/02/27/kpmg-launches-us-law-firm-after-landing-arizona-approval/?kw=KPMG%25252520Launches%25252520U.S.%25252520Law%25252520Firm%25252520After%25252520Landing%25252520Arizona%25252520Approval&amp;utm_position=2&amp;slreturn=20250301182051">
    <title>KPMG Launches U.S. Law Firm After Landing Arizona Approval</title>
    <dc:date>2025-03-07T19:19:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2025/02/27/kpmg-launches-us-law-firm-after-landing-arizona-approval/?kw=KPMG%25252520Launches%25252520U.S.%25252520Law%25252520Firm%25252520After%25252520Landing%25252520Arizona%25252520Approval&amp;utm_position=2&amp;slreturn=20250301182051</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Big Four accounting firm KPMG has successfully won a license to offer legal services in Arizona under the state’s Alternative Business Structure program.

An order posted on Thursday by the Arizona Supreme Court shows that KPMG won conditional approval to operate as an Arizona ABS, but the high court put a restriction on the application, determining that the firm cannot perform legal services for clients for which KPMG or its member firms conduct financial statement audits or attestations.

The state Supreme Court approved KPMG’s application to operate a nonlawyer-owned law firm after one of its own committees previously had unanimously recommended licensure.

KPMG, which is a U.S. audit, tax and advisory firm, says the approval will enable it to run KPMG Law US in Arizona to service Arizona legal clients.

The firm called the approval a “milestone,” saying it will mark the first law firm owned by a Big Four firm to serve legal clients in the U.S. market.

“KPMG is uniquely positioned to transform the delivery of legal services,” KPMG Tax LLP Vice Chair Rema Serafi said in a statement. “By combining cutting-edge artificial intelligence and advanced technology solutions with legal services, we are proud to be a first mover with this capability and to offer the most holistic range of tech-enabled services in the marketplace for our clients’ evolving needs.”

The firm, in a news release, said that 100 clients are already being served in Arizona, and that its in-state presence will enable KPMG Law US to operate as an independently managed subsidiary of KPMG and will maintain a strategic alignment with the KPMG Tax practice.

“This approach combines innovation with the longstanding KPMG commitment to quality, ethics, independence, and professional standards, so clients may benefit from comprehensive, integrated, professional services,” the news release states.

KPMG says that the legal services market is experiencing “rapid growth and transformation,” and that many businesses are looking to transform their legal operations to gain a competitive advantage.

“KPMG Law US combines the technological capabilities of KPMG with legal services to address the evolving needs of legal departments, backed by the firm’s trusted legacy of delivering solutions when they matter most,” the news release states.

The firm said that it plans to deliver technology-enabled legal services powered by artificial intelligence, and that the new law firm will collaborate with KPMG’s global network of law firms already operating in more than 80 jurisdictions.

KPMG said its legal subsidiary will provide a suite of legal managed services, legal operations consulting and advanced legal technology innovation for clients.

Thursday’s approval was significant because none of the other three Big Four accounting firms had yet expressed interest in operating as an ABS law firm in Arizona, which in 2021 eliminated the prohibition on nonlawyer law firm ownership.

While licensees are technically only able to service in-state clients, co-counsel relationships and other methods for collaboration may enable Arizona ABS firms to provide legal services nationwide.

Another accounting firm, Atlanta-based Aprio, recently announced a merger with another Arizona ABS boutique law firm, Radix Law, to offer alternative legal services in Arizona, and possibly beyond.

As part of KPMG’s license approval, the state Supreme Court said the law firm would have to conduct semiannual audits to review internal firm policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the rules and regulations of the ABS license.]]></description>
<dc:subject>accountants innovation regulation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:02b88589230c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:accountants"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/associate-news/lawyers-impatient-for-firms-to-invest-in-technology-and-innovation">
    <title>Lawyers impatient for firms to invest in technology and innovation - Legal Futures</title>
    <dc:date>2025-02-25T15:19:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/associate-news/lawyers-impatient-for-firms-to-invest-in-technology-and-innovation</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[LexisNexis have released a new report – Innovating the client experience: Law firms can offer much more than legal expertise – which reveals a sharp demand from lawyers for greater tech investment.

The survey of 800+ UK legal professionals found in-house legal counsel will need their external counsel to be cost-effective (74%), responsive and agile (67%), and offer specialist legal expertise (44%), all of which require an investment in new technology and innovation.

However, the survey revealed only 18% of private practice lawyers believe their firm is fast or very fast at implementing new technology. Nearing half (47.49%) said their firm is slow or very slow. Responding to change and making use of data and analytics are also areas in need of greater innovation. Two-thirds (67%) of legal professionals said their firm is adequate, slow or very slow at responding to change, while more than half (58%) said the same about data and analytics.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation associates AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:2f8c7a9b64f6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:associates"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/deepseek-ai-investment-tech/681516/">
    <title>How DeepSeek Could Really Disrupt Big Tech - The Atlantic</title>
    <dc:date>2025-01-31T15:33:11+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/deepseek-ai-investment-tech/681516/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[nly rarely does a single company’s new product provoke a major market sell-off. But that’s exactly what happened on Monday, when a large language model from a Chinese company named DeepSeek drove the entire Nasdaq index of tech companies down more than 3 percent and shaved more than 17 percent off the market capitalization of the chipmaker Nvidia—which, until that moment, had been the most valuable company in the world.

The panicked selling of Nvidia had a surface logic. The company provides almost all of the computer chips (called GPUs) that companies such as Alphabet, OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta rely on to train their LLMs. (The Atlantic entered into a corporate partnership with OpenAI in 2024.) Consequently, it has been the biggest beneficiary of the huge boom in corporate spending on AI that we’ve seen over the past few years. (Nvidia’s annual revenue has quadrupled since 2022.) Although DeepSeek also used Nvidia chips to train its model, the company said that they were an older type of GPU—U.S. export controls imposed by the Biden administration have prevented Chinese companies from buying cutting-edge chips. DeepSeek’s disclosure raises the possibility that future progress in training LLMs could be made with fewer, simpler chips, and at a lower cost than previously anticipated. That would obviously put a big dent in Nvidia’s profits. So investors dumped its stock.

Read: The DeepSeek wake-up call

If investors are very concerned about how DeepSeek might hurt chipmakers, they seem surprisingly unconcerned about how it might affect big AI software companies. Meta’s stock price, for instance, actually rose on Monday, and although the stocks of Alphabet and Microsoft did take a hit, they bounced back over the next couple of days. Some of that is because the underlying business of these companies, independent of AI, remains enormously profitable. But it also suggests that investors aren’t paying enough attention to the way DeepSeek’s success could disrupt the AI market, and in doing so threaten the future profits of the tech companies that are currently spending many billions of dollars every year on their LLMs.

Tech investors have historically profited by spotting the new new thing. But at the moment, they seem implicitly to assume that all of the fundamental change in the LLM business has already happened and that its future will look much like its present, with the companies that currently dominate the space—many of which are not simply competitors but also financial partners—continuing to do so indefinitely. What happened over the past week is a reminder that these assumptions may not be so solid.

The large language model that caused such a stir on Monday, DeepSeek-R1, is clearly comparable with LLMs such as ChatGPT o1-mini and Claude 3.5. Measured by industry benchmarks that rate subject knowledge, reasoning, and accuracy, the DeepSeek model seems to deliver similar performance while costing much less to develop—though just how much less remains a matter of debate. Beyond dispute is that it’s cheaper to use: Consumers can get access to DeepSeek’s core functions for free, and third-party developers are being charged a fraction of the cost of a product such as ChatGPT. DeepSeek also uses open-source technology, meaning that, in theory, you could download the program and run your own AI on your desktop if you had a powerful-enough computer. The fact that the LLM offers reasonable performance—results that, even a year ago, would have seemed startlingly good—at a significantly lower cost means that it has to be taken seriously as a competitor.

From one angle, in fact, DeepSeek looks like what the business-school professor Clayton Christensen, in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, dubbed a “disruptive technology”: a product that’s less powerful than the products at the top of the market but also much cheaper, and that has the possibility of improving in quality over time to the point where it offers a superior combination of price and performance for most customers. In this regard, the rapid uptake of DeepSeek by users around the world has been striking. The LLM still has miles to go in market share to catch ChatGPT, which has more than 300 million weekly users, but since its release on January 20, its mobile-app version has been downloaded more than 3 million times from Google Play and Apple, making it the most popular app on both stores. That suggests that the cost of switching from one AI tool to another is very low, and that the moats big AI companies are building around their business may be much shallower than they’d hoped.

Recommended Reading
parent with hand on head of young girl
The Last Children of Down Syndrome
Sarah Zhang


The Sad Truth About Seltzer
Olga Khazan

Vegetables on grocery-store produce shelves
Why So Many Rich Kids Come to Enjoy the Taste of Healthier Foods
Joe Pinsker

Read: China’s DeepSeek surprise

The underlying wager that these companies have made is that the big money they’re investing will result in radically better performance, which in turn will enable them to charge hefty sums to businesses and, to a lesser extent, consumers. (OpenAI, for instance, is reportedly targeting $100 billion in revenue by 2029.) And these companies remain committed to that bet. This week, the CEOs of both Microsoft and Meta said that enormous spending is essential to staying competitive in the market. Dario Amodei, a co-founder and the CEO of Anthropic (in which both Amazon and Google have invested heavily), wrote in a blog post that companies are going to continue to “spend more and more on training powerful AI models, even as … the cost of training a given level of model intelligence declines rapidly,” because “the economic value of training more and more intelligent models is so great.” In the long run, such investment may well result in the kind of performance improvement that a company like DeepSeek (which can’t even get access to the most powerful GPUs)—or the many other low-cost LLM developers that are sure to try to emulate it—cannot keep up with.

When you look at ordinary users’ embrace of DeepSeek, though, you can also see an alternative future. In this one, AI performance improves so much that most customers are happy with cheap, good-enough LLMs, and AI models end up as essentially interchangeable, commoditized products, with the small profits that always follow that type of commercial diffusion. We’re going to find out whether the great authors of the disruptive technology that’s transforming the business world might themselves get disrupted.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:2f78de8f0bd5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://download.ssrn.com/2024/11/20/4981622.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&amp;X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEDcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQCkSNpGxNL7Rf%2BZ%2BOekwXdkKcar4m%2BLARTYDkc%2BljKZVQIgDdf1qiPCVDJC5Gfyy3MAx%2FVpbMMcNeiRxNz3ZU5C1nUqvQUILxAEGgwzMDg0NzUzMDEyNTciDMSbeME30Qd4xNCdRCqaBWKDCmnhLTNKYweLJ7rJhNG1WiQ2gG866P5ZZMtslM%2BQEFwF239fgfbw0O6U5rfDcrcj2bMj7RN02mwBuL9WWEYbHifCOXIfbbY3ibLr2n6XmygE%2FJfa0YhyC3IjoT2bPa6cWTstMd45To5XUD8F5wt0157GhzANUwGXX6qYzSaqAoRvLfU6rQow7Ba%2Bl4kgQVFPXGky5Lvq9ifz3jdx32plJTRZQJDen80I4chCGJlKiEkZ3w8AlCFG3dSqpbWYGGz7knTeL3ZbWCcw7Nw9pfzbVgcDCT%2Bb6WzQ%2FURL7RFN1M8l%2F5sSvuT2FFydsJ6xgiWjKN69hz9GKkpVOMtZetvnWs%2FaRFQJDFZ0Ne1XomFAHso773wq1wThrB6AFoNWa%2F7wCMNXQ7NWg1QPDpR%2Bzd14mONAwB7D3ODdQ%2BdQuGV5JcNVzJhDxr8gEz%2FGDM5MoUFzXOWyGN7B0WHadTUTgA%2F15IY13PjTL9JVHK01AWy7%2FiWu104AzwExS%2BRoRxiqOHG5dY3RpwHunWPHf8NFx5T%2FtcEZAeGDHseq1Tl%2B0qsYFacenVbEsiHx7ajWKZFYiUTMis2k6DDNSEr%2BKRzVmWJTYwoZ3lIvOtkPNlGodjLoIIQNg0Gp%2FUBJwwcz4LvFIN1YLQIT3hFOazUmssyzTwEMhYIm%2FZRYAJe19k7KrEM%2BgHQu%2BZh%2B9xsmPdXRitOFds%2BVAHHjTAbz%2Bu8KSwb6BgVVnRH9ePAixSuqprvpqOnGfgCEqBB0gtYlzMgBRHHt5E%2Bm%2BM4VevLoixSL9zBLQtsd6x%2BiZ5AZAcl9eODiR8u4QjWkgrnIqD68TlUqSOWk1oxVw1YE7Nw8C%2F2J4%2FGLK4k36Z7OWuHTw%2Fe38ABgNIxbOQZFryOt0cq0oTD7hZ%2B8BjqxATvhkIeom%2BKyPpujDpiW2wR%2BwkpW69BxoMWLZnVRpv%2FKZjeL5vkbR6xzwclACSMYWc2gMKLXXo48ID2021V67xmvXMdYXsZ1dkpqD7TRZrIWykn6bSciYD5U0HR5CFwhUO%2F%2FB7PhbkCbkTMoSswVtoJk9C%2BYJkg3dr2CzrjFXoq00UTHLl7fInWfUAOV%2FBsmrDzxahgDED3iptOHn0%2FPpTBlg5ANHCrCjwDLIBXiCzR95g%3D%3D&amp;X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&amp;X-Amz-Date=20250115T150604Z&amp;X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&amp;X-Amz-Expires=300&amp;X-Amz-Credential=ASIAUPUUPRWEZEGX2KR5%2F20250115%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&amp;X-Amz-Signature=6f12ccface029aa70c1635b837c4d2b84ad89f526e3a0e5e5eb72b506a615910&amp;abstractId=4981622">
    <title>BAR EXAMINATION: A VERB, NOT A NOUN</title>
    <dc:date>2025-01-15T19:39:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://download.ssrn.com/2024/11/20/4981622.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&amp;X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEDcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQCkSNpGxNL7Rf%2BZ%2BOekwXdkKcar4m%2BLARTYDkc%2BljKZVQIgDdf1qiPCVDJC5Gfyy3MAx%2FVpbMMcNeiRxNz3ZU5C1nUqvQUILxAEGgwzMDg0NzUzMDEyNTciDMSbeME30Qd4xNCdRCqaBWKDCmnhLTNKYweLJ7rJhNG1WiQ2gG866P5ZZMtslM%2BQEFwF239fgfbw0O6U5rfDcrcj2bMj7RN02mwBuL9WWEYbHifCOXIfbbY3ibLr2n6XmygE%2FJfa0YhyC3IjoT2bPa6cWTstMd45To5XUD8F5wt0157GhzANUwGXX6qYzSaqAoRvLfU6rQow7Ba%2Bl4kgQVFPXGky5Lvq9ifz3jdx32plJTRZQJDen80I4chCGJlKiEkZ3w8AlCFG3dSqpbWYGGz7knTeL3ZbWCcw7Nw9pfzbVgcDCT%2Bb6WzQ%2FURL7RFN1M8l%2F5sSvuT2FFydsJ6xgiWjKN69hz9GKkpVOMtZetvnWs%2FaRFQJDFZ0Ne1XomFAHso773wq1wThrB6AFoNWa%2F7wCMNXQ7NWg1QPDpR%2Bzd14mONAwB7D3ODdQ%2BdQuGV5JcNVzJhDxr8gEz%2FGDM5MoUFzXOWyGN7B0WHadTUTgA%2F15IY13PjTL9JVHK01AWy7%2FiWu104AzwExS%2BRoRxiqOHG5dY3RpwHunWPHf8NFx5T%2FtcEZAeGDHseq1Tl%2B0qsYFacenVbEsiHx7ajWKZFYiUTMis2k6DDNSEr%2BKRzVmWJTYwoZ3lIvOtkPNlGodjLoIIQNg0Gp%2FUBJwwcz4LvFIN1YLQIT3hFOazUmssyzTwEMhYIm%2FZRYAJe19k7KrEM%2BgHQu%2BZh%2B9xsmPdXRitOFds%2BVAHHjTAbz%2Bu8KSwb6BgVVnRH9ePAixSuqprvpqOnGfgCEqBB0gtYlzMgBRHHt5E%2Bm%2BM4VevLoixSL9zBLQtsd6x%2BiZ5AZAcl9eODiR8u4QjWkgrnIqD68TlUqSOWk1oxVw1YE7Nw8C%2F2J4%2FGLK4k36Z7OWuHTw%2Fe38ABgNIxbOQZFryOt0cq0oTD7hZ%2B8BjqxATvhkIeom%2BKyPpujDpiW2wR%2BwkpW69BxoMWLZnVRpv%2FKZjeL5vkbR6xzwclACSMYWc2gMKLXXo48ID2021V67xmvXMdYXsZ1dkpqD7TRZrIWykn6bSciYD5U0HR5CFwhUO%2F%2FB7PhbkCbkTMoSswVtoJk9C%2BYJkg3dr2CzrjFXoq00UTHLl7fInWfUAOV%2FBsmrDzxahgDED3iptOHn0%2FPpTBlg5ANHCrCjwDLIBXiCzR95g%3D%3D&amp;X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&amp;X-Amz-Date=20250115T150604Z&amp;X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&amp;X-Amz-Expires=300&amp;X-Amz-Credential=ASIAUPUUPRWEZEGX2KR5%2F20250115%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&amp;X-Amz-Signature=6f12ccface029aa70c1635b837c4d2b84ad89f526e3a0e5e5eb72b506a615910&amp;abstractId=4981622</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This Article examines the many new developments in attorney licensure
taking place in the United States and offers an account of their advantages
and limitations, including their potential impact on multijurisdictional
practice. By deconstructing the varied new or improved ways to license
new attorneys, this Article will aid state supreme courts and state
examining boards that wish to explore exam alternatives]]></description>
<dc:subject>admission licensure innovation competence articling</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:c93931593bd6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:admission"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:licensure"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:articling"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2024/10/30/could-ai-investments-be-another-driver-of-law-firm-mergers/">
    <title>Could AI Investments Be Another Driver of Law Firm Mergers?</title>
    <dc:date>2024-11-12T20:44:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2024/10/30/could-ai-investments-be-another-driver-of-law-firm-mergers/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[While most firms are exploring generative AI in some capacity, it'll likely take large investments in talent and technology to fully realize the potential of artificial intelligence.

That realization could be incentivizing law firms to get bigger more quickly, whether it's through lateral hires, group acquisitions or law firm mergers.

"The investments that are required to keep up with the technology changes are extremely high and extremely challenging. And to have the professional talent, not just the legal talent, the professional talent, inside their firms that can figure out how to capitalize on all these generative AI changes and the technology space, there's an increased motivation [for mergers]," said Laura Saklad, vice president of the legal industry vertical at Intapp and a former chief operations officer at Orrick.

It can be a motivating factor for lateral moves, too.

"I had one partner saying the move was a lack of technology and efficiency at his firm, so he wanted to move to a place that was perhaps a little more progressive and efficient," said Susan Mendelsohn, a Chicago-based legal recruiter. "AI is definitely something that's helpful for firms [in recruiting]. But it's still in the early stages."

As merger interest has ramped up since the pandemic, firms have also been reshaping their staff. Last year, firms reversed the longer-term decline in library and research roles, according to a report from Thomson Reuters, with costs per lawyer devoted to those roles escalating nearly 13% and full-time equivalents per lawyer growing 5.3%. The report pointed to "preparation for increased use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools" as a potential cause.

"There are leaders of smaller firms that we are advising on M&A who have told us that part of their interest in combining with a larger firm is to have the scale necessary to properly invest in technology, including AI and other forms of tech-driven innovation," noted law firm merger consultant Kent Zimmermann.

Still, he noted that the leading drivers of merger conversations are often tied "to the increasing need to have the benefits of scale necessary" for talent compensation in firms' desired practice areas.

And there are many other drivers of law firm merger talks, from acquiring deeper practice benches to increasing geographic reach. Even peer pressure or fear of missing out may be part of the reason firms are exploring combinations. Meanwhile, increasing client demand and rising billing rates now also give firms more buying power for tech capabilities.

But Mark Medice, a law firm consultant and principal at LawVision, said he also thinks AI will accelerate what is already an active cycle for law firm mergers.

"It's possible law firms will have to make much more substantial capital investments if this stuff really does take hold, and that will obviously lead to a need to have a different kind of capital model, and scale in that case will be valuable," he said. "A larger platform, more money to spend—that will give you a competitive advantage."

Despite the investment so far and the potential for more, a recent report from LawVision found "nearly 100% of survey respondents indicated no material productivity gains over the past two years from the use of AI." The report collected responses from 80 mostly U.S.-based firms ranging in size from 75 lawyers to 2,000 lawyers.

Even law firms like Seyfarth Shaw, which prides itself on its approach to innovation and its exploration of AI, will tell you they're still trying to figure things out with AI.

"I'm not sure if I can answer your question whether AI is responsible for productivity increases in our firm or not. I can say that we've had productivity increases in our firm, so perhaps they are linked and I just haven't done the analysis to be able to tell you that's why," said Lorie Almon, the firm's chair, in an interview last week.

Still, Medice, who authored the LawVision report, remains bullish on the future of generative AI in the legal sector. "I'm a believer," he said, adding that the industry is still working through what is sometimes called the final-mile problem.

"It's one thing to have some of these impacts [from AI] on a smaller scale. It's another to actually have it in the ordinary course where you achieve critical mass and can trust the technology is correct enough to the standards of our industry, which is a pretty high standard, in order to build on the business proposition," he said. "But you'll need to price differently, pay people differently. You won't need fewer people, you'll just need people with a different skill set."]]></description>
<dc:subject>mergers r&amp;d innovation AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:99a9b2f1c512/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:mergers"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:r&amp;d"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2024/11/04/its-the-end-of-the-legal-industry-as-we-know-it/">
    <title>It’s The End Of The Legal Industry As We Know It – Artificial Lawyer</title>
    <dc:date>2024-11-12T19:30:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2024/11/04/its-the-end-of-the-legal-industry-as-we-know-it/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[As the economist Yanis Varoufakis postulated in his pioneering book ‘Technofeudalism’, if the Ancient Egyptians had developed the steam engine, rather than it changing the course of history, the Pharaohs would have installed one in their palace as an amusement and never tapped its full potential.

Why? Because the Egyptians were deeply wedded to manual labour, and because of the way their pyramidal society (sorry, had to get that in there….) was formed, they had a lot of it on tap. The Nile valley’s fertile land produced huge agricultural riches and the river never stopped flowing, meanwhile the nation was protected by the sea and the desert, i.e. it had a ‘moat’ of sorts on all sides. All they had to do was just keep that pyramid society going……

Now, does that remind you of anyone?

In short, they had no need to change…not for quite some time. Nor would they have felt the need to embrace an industrial revolution even if one were possible back then. Or, to rephrase the famous saying: ‘How do you tell a room full of Pharaohs that they’re doing something wrong?’]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:ee5f2258cccc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2024/10/22/top-firms-dont-fear-genai-but-others-do-pwc-survey/">
    <title>Top Firms Don’t Fear GenAI, But Others Do: PwC Survey – Artificial Lawyer</title>
    <dc:date>2024-11-08T19:34:54+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2024/10/22/top-firms-dont-fear-genai-but-others-do-pwc-survey/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[This year’s comprehensive PwC UK 100 law firm survey has found that the Top 10 largest firms see genAI as providing increased profits and revenue, but about half of smaller firms expect a negative impact.

As shown in the table below, there is a sharp difference between the views of the ten largest firms based in the UK, (by revenue), and those below that group. 83% of those in Top 10 firms were optimistic about genAI and agreed that they ‘will be able to use increased productivity to do more work for the same clients’. That in turn will increase revenue and profits.


PwC data, 2024
Meanwhile, firms from 11 to 100, saw 50% or more of respondents saying they believed that ‘clients will have the same volume of work, but will expect reduced prices from improved efficiency gains’. I.e. the work they do will become commoditised, or perhaps we can say ‘industrialised’, and hence client expectations on pricing will change.

In short, the top firms, which handle the largest, most complex matters, see genAI as allowing them to do more of that work, even if some of their output is commoditised. Meanwhile, the firms from 11 to 100, see a world where less complex matters reduce in value to the client – at least if still using the billable hour, as the work is done more quickly – and they may not necessarily be able to easily ‘move up market’ to compensate, as the Top 10 will fiercely hold onto this more complex work.

What does this mean long-term?

If what you do will be commoditised due to technology, and the clients won’t necessarily start giving you more work that is more bespoke, then you have several choices, or at least that’s what this site sees happening:

Cut your operating costs so that commoditised work can be done more profitably. This may actually mean using more genAI tools.
Increase marketing efforts to bring in a greater share of this commoditised work, i.e. expand market share. That in turn could lead to mergers in order to improve economies of scale.
If possible….try to focus more on specialised, high value work, which will drive up profits. However, that could prove hard to do if the vast majority of income is from commoditised matters. A solution would be for some partners to create a smaller, niche firm, while the remaining partners double down on commoditised work, i.e. a strategic split.
That if commoditised work evolves in this way, it may make sense to move to a new business structure, e.g. a more corporate format. Taking external investment to grow the business may also help, as market share will become a critical factor.
For the Top 10 firms, it’s a very different picture. They will seek to do all of a matter, but absorb the commoditised elements as a ‘loss leader’, making their money on the most complex aspects, or at least that’s how Artificial Lawyer sees things happening eventually.

To keep hold of the best matters, these firms will likely continue to increase associate salaries to compete in the talent war, as well as keep raising hourly rates in order to generate profits that will retain the top partner talent.

As noted, they may start to see more commoditised aspects of their work as a ‘value add’, i.e. effectively done for free, in order to retain the most valuable work for clients that is not price sensitive. Clients will continue to send whole matters to these firms and not split matters apart. They want these firms to take on the management and risk of large-scale, complex needs and if they can do the commoditised elements of a big project for free, or almost nothing, then that only makes the relationship better. Meanwhile, large corporates appear to be happy to pay very high rates for the most complex legal challenges they face.

There may also be more highly complex matters because the world is not getting any less complex, or less globalised. The top firms may however feel pressure from smaller firms that are seeking to take some of that high value work at lower rates, but they will plan on their brand and market position helping them to retain it – even at much higher chargeable rates.

In short, the split we have in the legal market, which is already pronounced will accelerate and grow even deeper, with multi-billion pound firms embracing genAI and not worrying about commoditisation, while many other smaller firms, with revenues in the 100s of millions or less really feeling the impact of tech-driven commoditisation if they cannot adapt…..But, they can adapt and there are plenty of ways they can do this. They may also benefit from Jevon’s Paradox and the rise in equality of arms (more on those two another day).

GenAI Adoption

The survey also found that genAI adoption is coming along at a steady pace in the UK, which matches other surveys we have seen. Copilot is most popular, which is no surprise, as it’s the easiest to get started with. But, 39% of the UK 100 are also either using or trialling legal tech company genAI applications, such as Harvey or Spellbook.


PwC Data, 2024
Meanwhile, 55% of firms are also developing their own LLM-connected services ‘using the firm’s own data’, for example Fleet AI at Dentons, and many others across the market.

So, there you go. There’s a lot more in the survey and this site will dig back into it again as there is so much there. It can be found here.]]></description>
<dc:subject>firms innovation competition associates AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:646a75ae84e5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:associates"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://info.persuit.com/reports/law-firm-ai-maturity-index-survey">
    <title>State of Generative AI in Legal</title>
    <dc:date>2024-11-08T19:34:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://info.persuit.com/reports/law-firm-ai-maturity-index-survey</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[State of Generative AI in Legal: A Survey Report of Generative AI Maturity Across Law Firms]]></description>
<dc:subject>firms innovation competition associates AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:aceafd615e13/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:associates"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1846778">
    <title>Anatomy Of A Remote BigLaw Office: Lessons From The Link - Law360 Pulse</title>
    <dc:date>2024-07-04T16:34:27+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1846778</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Four years since it launched in 2020, Husch Blackwell LLP's remote office, called The Link, has grown from 50 attorneys and business professionals to more than 700, with around a quarter of the law firm's attorneys practicing as part of the office.

As many other large law firms continue to emphasize and encourage in-person office attendance and back away from remote work, Husch Blackwell offers a "choose your own adventure" for lawyers and business professionals, making it an appealing choice for lawyers looking for a remote or hybrid option, according to recent lateral hire Tim Capria, managing partner of the firm's Nashville, Tennessee, office.

Capria joined the firm as part of The Link last year. As a resident of Nashville, a city where the firm did not yet have a presence, he said he wouldn't have considered the firm had it not been for The Link. Since joining, he's worked alongside colleagues to bring on others in the city and prepare for the launch of a brick-and-mortar office in the city.

The "choose your own adventure" aspect means lawyers can transition from The Link to a brick-and-mortar location or vice versa, depending on what works best for them and their teams, Capria explained.

There are exceptions. For their first three years of practice, associates are required to come into the office for training and development. After that, they need to be in good standing and have the permission of the partner or manager with whom they work. But outside of those parameters, people who work for Husch Blackwell have the option to be fully in-person, hybrid, or members of The Link.

While a handful of other large law firms allow fully remote work, The Link appears to be the only instance of a large law firm setting remote work up as an office — meaning members of the office socialize and network with one another, attend virtual events and meetings together, have their own committees, have a designated managing partner and office administrator and are privy to the same resources.

According to Husch Blackwell, the model has led to a great deal of interest in the firm, with a substantial number of lateral additions in recent years joining as part of the remote office, including the firm's current chief executive, Jamie Lawless, and Chief People Officer Jennifer Locklear.

Of the 194 laterals who have joined the firm since the beginning of 2023, around a third — 60 — have joined via the Link. And while the firm has 22 brick-and-mortar offices, The Link gives it a presence in 37 states and Washington, D.C., according to the firm.

"We are a people business, and nothing is more important than attracting and retaining the best lawyers and business professionals the market has to bear. This has given us a really unique opportunity to do that," Lawless told Law360 Pulse in a recent phone interview.

As the office has grown over the last four years, the firm has adjusted and tweaked elements of it as leaders learn a number of different lessons around deploying a remote workforce. According to J.Y. Miller, managing partner of The Link, the biggest lesson he learned was that it is possible to have a flourishing workplace culture regardless of whether you work in person or remotely.

"I learned that culture is not created just by walking into a shared space every day. And it's not created just because you allow people to work remotely, either. It's created through intention and effort," Miller said.

Miller has been at Husch Blackwell since 2002 and transitioned his toxic tort practice to The Link when it first opened in 2020.

In order to maintain a strong culture with a remote team, it's necessary to be "very thoughtful and constantly developing and revising plans that are carefully executed against," Miller said.

Some elements that have been helpful to The Link, he said, include having technology such as Microsoft Teams that is actively used to connect team members on a regular basis. The Link has a number of Microsoft Teams channels with dozens of contributors on a given day, Miller said.

It's also important to create opportunities for team members to meet in person when possible, he noted. Each team member of The Link has a secondary office designation at the nearest brick-and-mortar Husch Blackwell office, and they receive all communication from that office as well as invitations to events.

The firm also plans "Link days" once a month in St. Louis and a few other cities, where Link members are invited and encouraged to go into a nearby office and the entire office engages in an afternoon social event.

"We find ways to connect with one another and the people in our brick-and-mortar offices," Miller said. "Across the country, we're always looking to take advantage of opportunities to get together and meet face-to-face."

Another takeaway from The Link, according to Lawless, is the importance of investing in technology. She said the firm has invested in cloud technology that is used firmwide, regardless of whether lawyers are in-office or remote. There are savings on real estate, but the investments are nothing to sneeze at; according to Lawless, the firm spent $8 million on technology last year.

When workers choose to become a part of The Link, they receive technology from the firm including a monitor, docking station and $1,500 stipend for home office furniture. They also receive a monthly reimbursement for internet service.

Lawless noted that the benefits in recruiting and retention make the investments worthwhile.

"From a talent perspective, it expands our talent pool to be limitless. There's a huge advantage to not being restricted in who we can pursue," she said. "And then you tend to see people stay longer. It has become a value proposition that's really competitive and really unique as more firms are now spending time and energy encouraging folks to come back to the office."

According to Capria, The Link's model could work in other law firms, but it would depend on the culture and whether there's an openness to alternative ways of working at a law firm and building a practice.

"It doesn't work if people have to wonder: Will working remotely hurt my career? Do others expect me to be in the office?" he said. "Here, we don't have any of that as part of the culture. It's all about doing what's best for you personally and professionally at a given time."

Capria added that he just recently heard from a lawyer in Knoxville, Tennessee — where the firm does not have an office — who heard about Husch Blackwell's Nashville office launch and was interested in hearing more about what it might look like to join the firm. 

"It really does drive talent to our doorstep," he said.]]></description>
<dc:subject>remote office innovation associates training</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:1258d6cee879/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:remote"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:office"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:associates"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:training"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.ibj.com/articles/indiana-supreme-court-forms-commission-to-address-attorney-shortage">
    <title>Indiana Supreme Court forms commission to address attorney shortage – Indianapolis Business Journal</title>
    <dc:date>2024-06-12T19:25:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.ibj.com/articles/indiana-supreme-court-forms-commission-to-address-attorney-shortage</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The Indiana Supreme Court has established a 23-member Commission on Indiana’s Legal Future, poised to address the attorney shortage across the state and make recommendations to the court.

“We currently have a critical shortage of lawyers, which is impacting access to justice in each of our 92 counties,” said Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush. “It’s imperative that we address this issue now and act. But we must do so diligently and holistically. I am confident that this new commission will thoroughly examine potential solutions and come back to us with meaningful, transformative recommendations.”

According to the 2023 American Bar Association Profile of the Legal Profession, Indiana has the 44th lowest number of attorneys per capita, at only 2.3 per 1,000 residents. The lowest number reported among the states is 2.1 lawyers per 1,000 in Idaho, Arizona and South Carolina.

But the shortage is much more severe in some rural counties, especially as a steady stream of baby boomers retire.

In southeastern Indiana, for example, the number of attorneys in Dearborn County is 95% below the national average–the lowest in the state. Fast-growing Hamilton County in the Indianapolis suburbs ranks the highest at 62% above the national average.

The new commission examining the statewide shortage is led by Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik and Supreme Court Chief Administrative Officer Justin Forkner. The group includes members from each branch of government, judges, lawyers, leaders from the state’s legal education institutions and experts from the Office of Judicial Administration.

The commission is also launching five work groups that will focus on specific areas of expertise:

Business & Licensure Models
Pathways to Admission & Education
Incentivizing Rural Practice
Incentivizing Public Service Work
Technology Applications
A written report from the commission is expected to be given to the Supreme Court by July 1, 2025. Interim recommendations will be offered by Aug. 1, 2024.]]></description>
<dc:subject>regulation innovation access competence licensure</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:ec53e3274607/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:licensure"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://iaals.du.edu/blog/simplifying-divorce-informal-domestic-relations-trials">
    <title>Simplifying Divorce with Informal Domestic Relations Trials | IAALS</title>
    <dc:date>2024-06-12T19:11:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://iaals.du.edu/blog/simplifying-divorce-informal-domestic-relations-trials</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In an IDRT, the process is simplified as the judge speaks directly with the two parties and the parties can admit any evidence into the record so long as it is relevant. There are eight states that utilize these informal trials—Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—with slight variations in what they are called. Generally, IDRTs look similar state by state, and most states use an opt-in model that requires the parties to consent to using the informal trial. The two exceptions are Montana and Iowa. In Montana, if either party is self-represented, then the case is automatically assigned to an IDRT. The parties must request to opt out of the IDRT if they prefer a traditional trial. However, when both parties in Montana are represented by attorneys, there must be a consensus among the parties to use the informal process. Likewise, in the Seventh Judicial District of Iowa, if both parties are self-represented, an IDRT will automatically be scheduled, but the parties may opt out. Otherwise, parties must opt in to IDRTs.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>family innovation adr access</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:cac1bc171ddc/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:family"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:adr"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.anildash.com//2024/05/29/systems-the-purpose-of-a-system/?ref=ideasurplusdisorder.com">
    <title>Systems: The Purpose of a System is What It Does - Anil Dash</title>
    <dc:date>2024-06-12T18:40:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.anildash.com//2024/05/29/systems-the-purpose-of-a-system/?ref=ideasurplusdisorder.com</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[When trying to understand systems, one really eye-opening and fundamental insight is to realize that the machine is never broken. What I mean by this is, when observing the outcomes of a particular system or institution, it’s very useful to start from the assumption that the outputs or impacts of that system are precisely what it was designed to do — whether we find those results to be good, bad or mixed.

The most effective and broadly-understand articulation of this idea is the phrase, “the purpose of a system is what it does”, often abbreviated as POSIWID. The term comes to us from the field of cybernetics, and the work of Stafford Beer, but this is one of those wonderful areas where you really don’t have to read a lot of theory or study a lot of the literature to immediately get value out of the concept. (Though if you have time, do dig into the decades of research here; you'll enjoy it!)

A potential negative aspect of understanding that the purpose of a system is what it does, is that we are then burdened with the horrible but hopefully galvanizing knowledge of this reality. For example, when our carceral system causes innocent people to be held in torturous or even deadly conditions because they could not afford bail, we must understand that this is the system working correctly. It is doing the thing it is designed to do. When we shout about the effect that this system is having, we are not filing a bug report, we are giving a systems update, and in fact we are reporting back to those with agency over the system that it is working properly.]]></description>
<dc:subject>systems strategy innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:15031eeed757/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:systems"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:strategy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ey-reveals-redundancies-as-legal-disruptor-set-to-close/5118120.article">
    <title>EY reveals redundancies as legal acquisition from 2018 set to close | Law Gazette</title>
    <dc:date>2024-01-30T20:30:34+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ey-reveals-redundancies-as-legal-disruptor-set-to-close/5118120.article</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[ig Four professional services firm EY has decided to close a legal bolt-on firm just five years after snapping it up.

The company announced yesterday that EY Riverview Law would cease to operate as an independent entity and that existing client engagements would transfer to the EY UK business.

A spokesperson added: ‘As a result of this decision, regrettably, a number of employees have been subject to a formal redundancy consultation process. EY is supporting affected employees to explore other opportunities in the organisation.’

It is understood the only UK legal redundancies planned by EY are in Riverview Law. Reports on Monday suggested that legal staff would partly make up the 150 people earmarked for redundancy, but EY insists it is only Riverview staff affected in legal services.

The deal to acquire Manchester-based Riverview Law in August 2018 had been heralded by EY at the time as helping to establish its place as a ‘leading disruptor’ of legal services.

The move was intended to enhance and scale the EY Law legal managed services offering and to help clients to increase efficiency, manage risk, improve service transparency and reduce costs of routine legal activities.

Riverview Law, previously led by Karl Chapman, had marketed itself as a fixed-fee provider for blue-chip clients and had placed a strong emphasis on technology.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation accountants</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:f79936df6a9a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:accountants"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://abovethelaw.com/2023/11/omg-china-has-actual-legal-robots-and-all-the-legal-tech-patents/">
    <title>OMG, China Has ACTUAL Legal Robots And All The Legal Tech Patents - Above the Law</title>
    <dc:date>2023-11-30T19:27:15+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://abovethelaw.com/2023/11/omg-china-has-actual-legal-robots-and-all-the-legal-tech-patents/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[With government support, technology and AI companies in China are able to deliver the full suite of legal services and obviate the need for human lawyers in many cases. That eases burdens in courts and makes access to justice more readily available. Besides, lawyers have lots of opinions and can lead social movements that can get pretty annoying if you’re a government trying to avoid that.

Thus, what we see in China is a state-backed move to get technology into the courts, and we see this embraced at all levels of the legal system. There are the sentencing tools and robot lawyers described above. Seriously, you can walk into a court in China, and a robot will tell you if you are likely to win your case and how much it might cost you.]]></description>
<dc:subject>china access innovation courts ruleoflaw AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:cf09cdc5d077/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:china"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:courts"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:ruleoflaw"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://legaltechnology.com/2023/09/25/gowling-wlg-rolls-out-disputes-decision-theory-tool-eperoto-across-its-canadian-offices/">
    <title>Gowling WLG rolls out disputes decision theory tool Eperoto across its Canadian offices - Legal IT Insider</title>
    <dc:date>2023-11-23T19:23:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://legaltechnology.com/2023/09/25/gowling-wlg-rolls-out-disputes-decision-theory-tool-eperoto-across-its-canadian-offices/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Founded in Sweden in 2019, Eperoto helps lawyers to take the guess work out of assessing the outcome and quantum of disputes. Where traditionally, even in very high value legal disputes, advice boils down to phrases such as “we think we have a good chance of success”, Eperoto users instead build decision tree structures and other models to create assessments based on factors such as potential damages, interest rates, legal fees, and probability of success. 

Kugler, who also heads Gowling’s Class Action Defence Group, said that he had put the firm’s innovation team on notice to look out for an application that could apply decision tree software to help his team visualise the steps needed to be successful and, if possible, help them to quantify the risks associated with each step. He says: “In part it was to help guide lawyers’ thinking, but in part because I wanted to be able to provide a more graphic display of the risk profile to the client.”  

]]></description>
<dc:subject>predictions it innovation firms</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:72e276ffb3b4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:predictions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:it"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2023/08/25/davis-wrights-gen-ai-chatbot-is-fostering-collaboration/">
    <title>Davis Wright's Gen AI Chatbot Is Fostering Collaboration | Legaltech News</title>
    <dc:date>2023-08-29T18:03:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2023/08/25/davis-wrights-gen-ai-chatbot-is-fostering-collaboration/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The app, which is built on the ChatGPT platform with some proprietary additions, looks and feels like ChatGPT, but its data sources are limited to public-facing firm information such as website and HR content, according to Vidhya Prabhakaran, a partner and a member of the AI steering committee at Davis Wright.

“We wanted to offer a tool for our attorneys to start to play with the technology, develop some muscle memory, and learn how to use it to make non-legal tasks involved in lawyering more efficient, in a safe way,” Prabhakaran said.

Attorneys are using the platform to collaborate with other firm lawyers, who may have more experience or done more research in a particular field, according to Dan Szabo, the director of enterprise projects at Davis Wright. Some are using it to seek help to develop presentations for a particular industry, or write a pitch for a particular lawyer based on their bio and accolades.

“Part of the fun is learning how people are using it,” Prabhakaran said. “A lot of it is trying to figure out the firm and navigate the enterprise labyrinth, but others are using it to develop innovative business ideas.”

The platform can help an employment lawyer, for instance, get up to speed on the energy industry by interacting with the chatbot in a similar manner to talking to a senior attorney in that space, making the employment lawyer more successful in providing legal advice, he said.

Davis Wright is also looking into prompt engineering training and other formal programs to help attorneys get up to speed on generative AI, Prabhakaran said.

That’ll come before the firm unleashes the technology into actual lawyering, he added. “We’re not feeding client information into the app today, and we won’t do so without explicit client consent to do so,” he said.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:ad46c6c4b9e4/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2023/06/09/head-of-mishcon-de-reyas-incubator-discusses-product-defensibility-in-age-of-gen-ai/">
    <title>Head of Mishcon de Reya’s Incubator Discusses Product ‘Defensibility’ in Age of Gen AI | Legaltech News</title>
    <dc:date>2023-06-12T13:34:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2023/06/09/head-of-mishcon-de-reyas-incubator-discusses-product-defensibility-in-age-of-gen-ai/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[I don’t know whether they’ve shifted or whether they’ve just become more precise. …  I think what has changed however, it’s the buy side dynamic. So I think we are able to think more critically about a company’s ability to scale revenue based on where they sit in the market.

And, again, as we have more data around company performance in legal tech at the later stages, we’re then able to say, do we really think that that’s a comp or who exists in that space that is better positioned?

What generative AI has done is force us to think more deeply about product defensibility. The stuff that people were doing back in 2017, which was proprietary, can now ostensibly be done with open source. And so we definitely think about defensibility.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation it AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:80fce1ba5db2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:it"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1682740?nl_pk=668add9d-2dd6-4fcb-b0c7-e53f7c48df21&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=3">
    <title>Ariz., Utah OK Nonlawyer Program For Housing Advice - Law360 Pulse</title>
    <dc:date>2023-06-08T16:38:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1682740?nl_pk=668add9d-2dd6-4fcb-b0c7-e53f7c48df21&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=3</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A new legal service model that aims to keep more low-income families in their homes has received approval from the Arizona and Utah supreme courts — which have waived restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law.

The Innovation for Justice program, also known as i4J, announced a new Housing Stability Legal Advocate Initiative on Tuesday to train and empower licensed advocates who are employed by or volunteer at community-based organizations to provide limited-scope legal advice and services to tenants who are facing eviction. 
In most states, only lawyers can provide these types of legal services, due to restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law.

Cayley Balser, the program's community-engaged research operations lead, who co-led the housing initiative, said the new service model was the first to be authorized in two jurisdictions.

"Building the bench of legal service providers beyond only lawyers and law students to include staff at community-based organizations increases the resources available for community members," Balser told Law360 Pulse in an email Tuesday. "This initiative has the potential to change the delivery of legal services nationwide because it is the first time that a service model is being implemented in two jurisdictions simultaneously. This will allow us to evaluate the effectiveness of this service model in two states that have different housing stability landscapes, including different civil justice system interaction points and timelines.]]></description>
<dc:subject>access innovation regulation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:64c2d0bb4fd9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2023/05/26/hogan-lovells-launches-eltemate-a-tech-subsidiary-combining-lawyers-engineers-ai-specialists/?kw=Hogan%2520Lovells%2520Launches%2520ELTEMATE%252C%2520a%2520Tech%2520Subsidiary%2520Combining%2520Lawyers%252C%2520Engineers%252C%2520AI%2520Specialists&amp;oly_enc_id=">
    <title>Hogan Lovells Launches ELTEMATE, a Tech Subsidiary Combining Lawyers, Engineers, AI Specialists | Legaltech News</title>
    <dc:date>2023-05-31T16:33:26+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2023/05/26/hogan-lovells-launches-eltemate-a-tech-subsidiary-combining-lawyers-engineers-ai-specialists/?kw=Hogan%2520Lovells%2520Launches%2520ELTEMATE%252C%2520a%2520Tech%2520Subsidiary%2520Combining%2520Lawyers%252C%2520Engineers%252C%2520AI%2520Specialists&amp;oly_enc_id=</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[On May 24, Hogan Lovells released its own legal technology brand and wholly owned subsidiary ELTEMATE, which will host and develop the firm’s legal tech tool offerings going forward.

The entity will congregate the firm’s proprietary legal tech tools released over the years, which include e-discovery solutions, regulatory updates, document automation, case management and more.

For example, in March, the firm announced that its international trade and investment practice launched the Hogan Lovells Encryption Assistant to support and manage clients’ internal encryption classification process.

“Developing tech tools for firms … can happen most effectively in a venture environment. Law firms are not risk-embracing structures I would say, per se, but tech needs this kind of freedom of thought and the freedom to develop and the freedom to create, the freedom to try things,” said Sebastian Lach, CEO of ELTEMATE.

He added, “So we said we’re putting this into a separate entity, into a venture to get the most out of this initiative, to make it most effective, to make it quick and to be at the forefront of development for our clients.”

With a team combining legal professionals, consultants, engineers and artificial intelligence specialists, ELTEMATE will develop future legal technology tools for Hogan Lovells and its clients. The entity will also work with clients on building tailored legal tech solutions.]]></description>
<dc:subject>subsidiaries firms it innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:54c3c45a1317/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:subsidiaries"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:it"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.slaw.ca/2023/02/14/serving-the-needs-of-the-many/">
    <title>Serving the Needs of the Many - Slaw</title>
    <dc:date>2023-03-10T18:36:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.slaw.ca/2023/02/14/serving-the-needs-of-the-many/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The primary objective of the Mobile Rural Law Van has been to expand service in underserved rural areas, first to rural Wellington County in the summer 2019 pilot project and then, in the second three-year phase of the project from 2021 to 2024, to Wellington County and to the adjacent North Halton area as well. The mobile summer Law Van operates between May and the end of ]]></description>
<dc:subject>access innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:57e59dfa164b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1583756?nl_pk=dda49094-7ba2-4eb8-95fb-0894d732b44b&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=2">
    <title>EY Creates New Global Sustainability Legal Services Role - Law360</title>
    <dc:date>2023-03-09T17:16:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1583756?nl_pk=dda49094-7ba2-4eb8-95fb-0894d732b44b&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=2</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The EY Global Sustainability Legal Services team will work with other EY Law teams throughout the EY organization to provide legal services to help clients address their sustainability priorities and challenges. That work includes providing new contracts and contract amendments that are fit for both present and future environmental, social and governance needs.

"Sustainability is one of the defining challenges of our time," Davies said in a statement. "In simple terms, every organization needs to change what it does, or how it does it, to remain valuable in the transitioning global economy. And no one organization can approach sustainability in a vacuum — it exists in an interconnected world of sustainability."

Davies said she recognizes that not everyone completely understands the role of sustainability in today's world and that a large part of her work will be educational, at least at first.]]></description>
<dc:subject>climate innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:e7a2110f0d71/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:climate"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://thestarphoenix-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/steven-lewis-ottawa-wants-its-health-care-dollars-to-make-a-difference-heres-a-suggestion/wcm/b96bb8fc-95e2-4c75-8502-8ef92261a15d/amp/">
    <title>Steven Lewis: Ottawa wants its health-care dollars to make a difference. Here’s a suggestion. | The Star Phoenix</title>
    <dc:date>2023-03-03T17:24:04+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://thestarphoenix-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/thestarphoenix.com/opinion/columnists/steven-lewis-ottawa-wants-its-health-care-dollars-to-make-a-difference-heres-a-suggestion/wcm/b96bb8fc-95e2-4c75-8502-8ef92261a15d/amp/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[What’s wrong with Regulation 1.0? First, it is an overcrowded geological ecosystem of living and dead parts, a lumbering accretion of layers, roles and professions, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. It needs the full Marie Kondo.

Second, despite its expanding bulk, health care is often unsafe, rarely standardized based on the best scientific evidence, and inefficient. Regulation needs to play a bigger role in improvement.

Third, it is highly fragmented, with over 30 regulated professions, major differences in capacity and expertise among the 13 provinces and territories, and idiosyncratic policy differences that get in the way of national standards, seamless information sharing, and mobility.

What does the Regulation 2.0 R and D agenda look like? For starters:]]></description>
<dc:subject>regulation innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:ece24d64d3e2/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law360.com/access-to-justice/articles/1566371">
    <title>Panel Urges Legal Reformers To Include Community Groups - Law360</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-26T15:26:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law360.com/access-to-justice/articles/1566371</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Lawyers and judges need to include consumers and community-based organizations in their design- and decision-making process for implementing legal regulatory reform, according to a panel at the Legal Services Corp.'s Innovations in Technology Conference on Friday.

Stacy Butler, director of design hub Innovation for Justice, said during the panel that after four years of studying legal innovation, the organization found that the lawyers and judges spearheading regulatory reform in their states were not engaging with community members.

Early regulatory reform in some states might have failed because decision makers didn't engage with community members who were supposed to benefit from the reform, Butler said.

"We would recommend other jurisdictions consider bringing all of these people together," she said.]]></description>
<dc:subject>access regulation innovation community</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:0eb0bdf81580/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:community"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.legalevolution.org/2022/10/learning-about-law-firms-part-iii-innovation-at-everybody-else-firms-335/">
    <title>Learning about law firms, Part III: Innovation at &quot;Everybody Else&quot; firms (335) | Legal Evolution</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-25T19:57:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legalevolution.org/2022/10/learning-about-law-firms-part-iii-innovation-at-everybody-else-firms-335/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In early 2008, the St Louis-based firm of Husch & Eppenberger (ranked #136 in the NLJ 350) merged with Kansas City-based Blackwell Sanders (ranked #138).  The leaders of the two firms believed that they had put together a merger of equals, hence the firm’s name was decided by a flip of a coin.  According to news reports,  “Husch won the toss.” See “Merged law firm will be called Husch Blackwell Sanders,” Kansas City Bus Journal, Jan 3, 2008 (quoting new firm co-chair David Fenley).

]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:40c5758c5fbd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/sports/tennis/business-australian-open.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&amp;referringSource=articleShare">
    <title>Inside the Battle to Control, and Fix, Tennis - The New York Times</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-24T16:53:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/sports/tennis/business-australian-open.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&amp;referringSource=articleShare</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><dc:subject>innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:5b6363756e42/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1566861?nl_pk=dda49094-7ba2-4eb8-95fb-0894d732b44b&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=3">
    <title>Axiom Starts Arizona Law Firm, Names Managing Partner - Law360</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-24T16:52:24+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law360.com/pulse/modern-lawyer/articles/1566861?nl_pk=dda49094-7ba2-4eb8-95fb-0894d732b44b&amp;nlsidx=0&amp;nlaidx=3</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[egal staffing and legal services provider Axiom launched an Arizona-based law firm called Axiom Advice & Counsel, or AA&C, on Monday, months after securing an alternative business structure license from the state.

Seasoned attorney Matthew Levine, a former co-manager and co-founding member of Scottsdale-based Titus Brueckner & Levine PLC, has joined AA&C and will serve as its managing partner.

"The law firm, working alongside Axiom, would be able to sort of bridge that last gap," Catherine Kemnitz, Axiom's chief strategy and development officer, who is also a designated principal for AA&C, told Law360 Pulse. "Today, with all the rates creeping up and all of the challenges of resourcing that in-house clients are seeing, we'd be able to provide a more robust offering."]]></description>
<dc:subject>abs innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:4dfa9ed01326/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_900972_smxx.pdf">
    <title>Napoleonic wars-&gt; Industrial revolution</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-24T16:45:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_900972_smxx.pdf</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Where
the British armed forces recruited heavily, more machines that economized on
labor were adopted. For purposes of identification, we focus on naval recruitment. Using warships’ ease of access to coastal locations as an instrument, we
show that exogenous shocks to labor scarcity led to technology adoption. The
same shocks are only weakly associated with the adoption of non-labor saving technologies. Importantly, there is also a synergy between skill abundance
and labor scarcity boosting technology adoption. Where labor shortages led to
the adoption of labor-saving machines, technology afterwards improved more
rapidly.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation stratfor</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:f037a6b3da5a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:stratfor"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2022/12/15/chatgpt-is-impressive-but-can-and-should-it-be-used-in-legal/?kw=ChatGPT%2520Is%2520Impressive%252C%2520But%2520Can%2520%2528and%2520Should%2529%2520It%2520Be%2520Used%2520in%2520Legal%3F">
    <title>ChatGPT Is Impressive, But Can (and Should) It Be Used in Legal? | Legaltech News</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-04T17:18:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2022/12/15/chatgpt-is-impressive-but-can-and-should-it-be-used-in-legal/?kw=ChatGPT%2520Is%2520Impressive%252C%2520But%2520Can%2520%2528and%2520Should%2529%2520It%2520Be%2520Used%2520in%2520Legal%3F</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Ghavi also saw the potential for law firms to “train and run individual models [and] create their own set of forms. … You can have a Fried Frank style, you could have a Wachtell style, you could have a Skadden style, and that could be informed by almost real-time releases on EDGAR,” he explained. In his view, such developments “hopefully will kill forever the question of what is market” when it comes to drafting legal documents.

However, the question of whether ChatGPT can help with legal is a bit short-sighted in Ghavi’s view. “We’re all reacting to a GPT-3.5 world. I think that’s the wrong paradigm to think about the future and we need to think about the future in a GPT-4, -5 or -6 world. … We’re dinosaurs in the legal industry, and by the time we get around to beginning to adopt this, the rest of the world is on GPT-6, -7 or -8.”

“I’m challenging people to expand their imaginations a little bit and not … look at the capabilities of the technology that was just released and how that impacts day-to-day life,” he added. “Because I see the unreleased technology at [developer] Stability AI, so I kind of have a sense as to where this is headed over the next six months and the, frankly, incredible pace of development with each project and company leapfrogging one another. It leads me to believe that you’ve got to really sort of imagine disruption into the future and be a little bit more mentally nimble.”]]></description>
<dc:subject>competition innovation AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:7ec8242a043e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/will-chatgpt-make-lawyers-obsolete-hint-be-afraid-2022-12-09/">
    <title>Will ChatGPT make lawyers obsolete? (Hint: be afraid) | Reuters</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-04T17:15:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/will-chatgpt-make-lawyers-obsolete-hint-be-afraid-2022-12-09/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Perlman gave ChatGPT a series of prompts: Draft a brief to the United States Supreme Court on why its decision on same-sex marriage should not be overturned; Explain the concept of personal jurisdiction; Develop a list of deposition questions for the plaintiff in a routine motor vehicle accident; Create a contract for the sale of real estate in Massachusetts -- and half a dozen others.

And then verbatim, he offered its responses.

They’re … not bad.

The bot “isn’t ready for prime time,” Perlman said. But also, it doesn’t seem all that far off.

I reached out to ChatGPT maker OpenAI to ask about the technology's advantages and limitations but did not immediately hear back from a human. I did, however, talk to the bot itself about its capabilities. More on that below.]]></description>
<dc:subject>regulation competition innovation AI</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:ad6855f0b766/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competition"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:AI"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://willamette.edu/news/library/2022/12/attorney-licensure-story.html">
    <title>Exploring new paths to attorney licensure news</title>
    <dc:date>2023-01-04T17:09:56+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://willamette.edu/news/library/2022/12/attorney-licensure-story.html</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Ultimately, the task force produced two reports, the first of which it issued in summer of 2021 recommending two new pathways to licensure. Those recommendations — to adopt separate experiential and supervised practice pathways — were guided by two principles: consumer protection and equity. The report builds on extensive empirical work from the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, known as IAALS, affirming what many have already recognized: the current bar exam does not test the skills new lawyers need or that employers wants. 

"This is a tremendous and historic shift in the thinking around attorney licensure," says Brian Gallini, dean of Willamette Law and a member of the task force. 

]]></description>
<dc:subject>licensing competence admission innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:eea0872e3554/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:licensing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:admission"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/2022/11/09/dwf-deal-first-of-its-kind-in-canadian-legal-market-292-134563/">
    <title>Deal Between Law Firm, Publicly Traded Legal Service Provider 'First of Its Kind' in Canadian Legal Market | Law.com</title>
    <dc:date>2022-11-14T17:29:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/2022/11/09/dwf-deal-first-of-its-kind-in-canadian-legal-market-292-134563/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Shugarman said the deal also offers a unique “sense of ownership and interest” for the firm’s 200 lawyers and employees. He said they have set aside C$800,000 of the C$26 million consideration from DWF to create a share plan for employees.

“It’s not just the lawyers who will share in that … but every employee, whether they are in the IT department, or the administrative department or the HR department,” he said.

The alignment of cultures at DWF and Whitelaw Twining, which both started out as “regional scrappy firms,” meant it made sense to take a “calculated risk” on the opportunity to grow and “make people feel a part of that business,” he said.

While the deal’s structure does protect the core values of lawyer privilege and confidentiality, Paton pointed out that the insistence on lawyer control of the delivery of legal services “means that a business structure like this will be of limited interest” to most investors.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>sandbox regulation innovation abs</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:791246c1536e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:sandbox"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/resources/practice-management/publicly-traded-dwf-buys-whitelaw-twining-amid-strict-rules-on-ownership-delivery-of-legal-services/371376">
    <title>Publicly traded DWF buys Whitelaw Twining amid strict rules on ownership, delivery of legal services | Canadian Lawyer</title>
    <dc:date>2022-11-14T17:28:39+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/resources/practice-management/publicly-traded-dwf-buys-whitelaw-twining-amid-strict-rules-on-ownership-delivery-of-legal-services/371376</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In a rarity for law firms in Canada, Vancouver-based Whitelaw Twining will become part of a publicly traded company, as London, UK-based DWF Group announced plans this week to buy the insurance defence practice for $42 million.

 “Joining forces in this way with the DWF Group is simply the next step in our firm’s evolution,” says Whitelaw Twining Country Manager Dan Shugarman. “It gives us the ability to offer clients and the public a broader range of services.”

 Whitelaw Twining is a full-service litigation firm specializing in insurance, focusing on defence, commercial litigation, personal injury and dispute resolution.]]></description>
<dc:subject>sandbox regulation innovation abs</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:49ddd1915a2f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:sandbox"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.legalevolution.org/2022/10/the-high-highs-and-low-lows-of-legal-regulatory-reform-334/">
    <title>The high highs and low lows of legal regulatory reform (333) | Legal Evolution</title>
    <dc:date>2022-10-18T22:50:30+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legalevolution.org/2022/10/the-high-highs-and-low-lows-of-legal-regulatory-reform-334/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We found that regulatory reforms are spurring substantial innovation in five different ways, particularly in the ownership structure of providers and in their service delivery models. In particular, we have identified five innovation types: (1) traditional law firms making changes to their capital or business structure or service model; (2) “law companies” practicing law; (3) “non-law companies” as new entrants to the legal sector; (4) intermediary platforms; and (5) entities using nonlawyers and technology to practice law.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>gulation innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:dbd9a2cc052e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:gulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/2022/09/08/the-law-firm-disrupted-meet-the-first-business-law-boutique-owned-by-non-lawyers/">
    <title>The Law Firm Disrupted: Meet The First Business Law Boutique Owned By Non-Lawyers | Law.com</title>
    <dc:date>2022-09-27T15:44:50+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/2022/09/08/the-law-firm-disrupted-meet-the-first-business-law-boutique-owned-by-non-lawyers/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[And while the outside owners–a collection of successful business owners across a variety of disciplines–have no role in dealing with actual representations, they’re available to lend their knowledge and add value on an ad hoc basis for questions surrounding how to negotiate a new lease. These individuals have also leveraged their connections in the community to help Radix gain new business. 

“We’ve assembled the Avengers, in that Iron Man is good for something different than what Captain America does, which is different from what Black Panther does,” Kvesic said. 

Meanwhile, the outside investors have a range of ideas over how to grow the firm’s revenues: with those coming from venture capital interested in opportunities for scaling, those in consumer goods interested in bolting on brand new practice groups like mass tort and catastrophic injury work, and others thinking about more complementary areas like wealth planning and real estate. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>abs innovation pricing firms</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:5c3c6c6b1f36/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:pricing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://abovethelaw.com/2022/07/is-the-problem-with-partnerships-the-partnership/">
    <title>Is The Problem With Partnerships The Partnership? - Above the LawAbove the Law</title>
    <dc:date>2022-07-20T15:03:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://abovethelaw.com/2022/07/is-the-problem-with-partnerships-the-partnership/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Historically, the notion of permanent equity in a law firm was impossible under the ethics rules governing fee-sharing and nonattorney ownership of law firms. But those aren’t the problems they used to be. Several jurisdictions, such as Arizona, Florida, and Utah, have either loosened or done away with those ethics rules in recent years, and would make ideal test beds for this kind of new firm structure.

Importing these benefits to a law firm could be revolutionary. Many of the bad incentives of the current model get turned on their head. Whereas our current model pushes senior partners to prefer short-term profits, a law firm offering permanent equity would allow those senior partners to also see the benefits of long-term planning. Attorneys who know they’ll be seeing many years of dividends from the good decisions they make today will be more likely to take a long-term perspective and make needed investments.

Stock and stock options in a law firm could also improve the life of associates. Associate compensation could begin to include either outright equity grants or grants of shares vesting over time. Associates who know they’re literally building equity in a firm are less likely to move laterally in search of a marginally bigger paycheck, while the partners supervising them may be more inclined to treat those associates as the stewards of their long-term investments instead of short-term profit centers. Offering permanent equity blurs the lines between associate and partner — in a good way. It creates both actual and perceived ownership of a company that will improve associate morale as well as retention.]]></description>
<dc:subject>models firms partners equity innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:95b15f138e06/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:models"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:partners"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:equity"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2022/06/27/personal-injury-technology-provider-to-take-on-its-own-clients/?kw=Personal%2520Injury%2520Technology%2520Provider%2520to%2520Take%2520on%2520Its%2520Own%2520Clients">
    <title>New York Legal Tech Provider to Take on Billboard Lawyers | Legaltech News</title>
    <dc:date>2022-06-29T13:45:44+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2022/06/27/personal-injury-technology-provider-to-take-on-its-own-clients/?kw=Personal%2520Injury%2520Technology%2520Provider%2520to%2520Take%2520on%2520Its%2520Own%2520Clients</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In addition to regular traditional PI legal services, Mighty promises to assist clients with finding post-injury mental or physical therapy or offering financial advice for cash-strapped accident victims. “It starts with incentives,” company founder Josh Schwadron said, “lower pricing and a much more holistic service.”

“We are pushing the envelope and pushing the entire industry towards a different mindset where everyone measures client outcomes as opposed to their individual outcomes,” Schwadron added.

Joshua Schwadron, founder & CEO of Mighty.com. Courtesy photo
Mighty promises to never charge fees higher than 30% at settlement for cases that don’t end up in court. For cases that go to litigation, the client fee is 36%.  The idea is to offer clients a one-stop-shop solution and a trial period of 60 days. For comparison, the American Bar Association lists contingency fees arrangements anywhere between one-third and 40% of the settlement.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation pricing</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:e7bcfb14b712/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:pricing"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/australian-law-firm-targets-uk-smes-with-unlimited-subscription-service">
    <title>Australian law firm targets UK SMEs with unlimited subscription service - Legal Futures</title>
    <dc:date>2022-06-24T13:37:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/australian-law-firm-targets-uk-smes-with-unlimited-subscription-service</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A tech-driven Australian practice offering SMEs unlimited, on-demand legal services on a subscription basis has set up in the UK, saying the shortcomings in law firms’ digital marketing strategies offers a major opportunity.

LegalVision does not handle one-off pieces of work; instead, members pay between £49 and £329 per week, depending on the size of business and length of contract (one, three or five years), for all business-as-usual legal advice.

Services include commercial contracts, intellectual property, employment, business sales, data and privacy law, franchising and leasing, and their use is unlimited. Upon renewal, levels of use are not taken into account – indeed, co-founder Lachlan McKnight told Legal Futures that the biggest problem was underuse.]]></description>
<dc:subject>sme subscription innovation firms</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:45bb7ecbd14b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:sme"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:subscription"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.legalevolution.org/2022/06/the-commons-law-center-a-unique-and-promising-business-model-for-peoplelaw-311/#more-17433">
    <title>The Commons Law Center: A unique and promising business model for PeopleLaw (311) | Legal Evolution</title>
    <dc:date>2022-06-20T16:11:36+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legalevolution.org/2022/06/the-commons-law-center-a-unique-and-promising-business-model-for-peoplelaw-311/#more-17433</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Along with providing legal services to people who would otherwise fall into the modest means gap, the Commons works on training new lawyers, providing them with a proving ground. Grant said new attorney hires are asked to make a three-year commitment to the Commons, but it is not a requirement.

Similarly, the Commons business model relies heavily on clerks — law students, paralegal students, and undergrads — to run its operations, effectively blending education and mentoring with the cost constraints of running a high-volume, low bono law firm, resulting in a win-win-win for all stakeholders.]]></description>
<dc:subject>access innovation training</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:a76d17685e45/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:training"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/02/09/this-boutique-is-ditching-the-path-to-partnership-and-the-billable-hour-adopting-a-new-profit-sharing-model/?cmp=share_twitter">
    <title>This Boutique Is Ditching the Path to Partnership and the Billable Hour, Adopting a New Profit-Sharing Model | The Recorder</title>
    <dc:date>2022-02-28T18:03:41+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/02/09/this-boutique-is-ditching-the-path-to-partnership-and-the-billable-hour-adopting-a-new-profit-sharing-model/?cmp=share_twitter</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Tyz Law Group, a Northern California-based litigation and intellectual property boutique, is offering a different path—and compensation model—amid an exodus of attorneys leaving Big Law life.

The firm announced last month it is entirely eliminating the “path to partnership” concept and instead rewarding attorneys for seniority and responsibility as well as contributions such as mentoring, business development and innovation.

As part of the transition, the firm ditched the traditional law firm compensation model in favor of a profit-sharing model in which attorneys are eligible after two years to receive compensation based on the month-to-month successes of the firm.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation pricing partnership compensation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:599258c94831/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:pricing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:partnership"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:compensation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/government-to-pilot-publicly-funded-early-legal-advice">
    <title>Government to pilot publicly funded early legal advice - Legal Futures</title>
    <dc:date>2022-02-08T19:00:32+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/government-to-pilot-publicly-funded-early-legal-advice</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[It is also investigating putting legal advice centres in hospitals.

Justice minister Lord Wolfson outlined the latest moves in a letter to the justice select committee and in a short debate in the House of Lords on legal aid in social welfare law.

Last month, the government laid a statutory instrument to bring legal advice for certain housing, debt and welfare benefits issues in scope of legal aid for the purposes of the pilots. The work will be non-means and non-merits tested and there will be a new standard fee of £200.70.

Lawyers will be able to charge £57.43 an hour for preparation and attendance, £32.17 for travel and waiting time, and £4.56 per routine letter out and telephone call.

Lord Wolfson said in his letter: “The pilot itself is designed to test the expansion of legal aid to an area of social welfare, demonstrate the possible benefits of advice in encouraging early resolution, and quantify the downstream benefits of early resolution to government…]]></description>
<dc:subject>access innovation health legalaid</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:3ab4b6d8b3a5/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:health"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:legalaid"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/initiatives/access-to-justice/future-of-legal-services/">
    <title>Future of Legal Services Initiative</title>
    <dc:date>2022-01-03T20:24:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/initiatives/access-to-justice/future-of-legal-services/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[We are working to expand access to regulated legal services!
We are working to expand access to regulated legal services as we implement the recommendations in the Final Report of the Legal Services Task Team! The Law Society of Saskatchewan is committed to do this in a responsible and sustainable manner, balancing the need for ensuring public protection and enhancing legal services for underserved Saskatchewan individuals. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>regulation innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:58a9da99b6c6/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/america-innovation-film-science-business/620858/">
    <title>America Is Running Out of New Ideas - The Atlantic</title>
    <dc:date>2021-12-16T17:28:37+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/america-innovation-film-science-business/620858/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Undeniably, the communications revolution has been the most significant fount of new ideas in the past half century. But the vitality of the tech industry in comparison with other industries points up that the U.S. innovation system has devolved from variety to specialization in the past 40 years or so. The U.S. used to produce a broad diversity of patents across many industries—chemistry, biology, and so forth—whereas patents today are more concentrated in a single industry, the software industry, than at any other time on record. We’ve funneled treasure and talent into the world of bits, as the world of flesh and steel has decayed around it. In the past 50 years, climate change has worsened, nuclear power has practically disappeared, construction productivity has slowed down, and the cost of developing new drugs has soared.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:3deb1f74d1af/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2021/12/08/innovation-averse-law-schools-risk-missing-out-on-the-legal-industrys-regulatory-renaissance/">
    <title>'Innovation Averse' Law Schools Risk Missing Out on the Legal Industry's Regulatory Renaissance | Corporate Counsel</title>
    <dc:date>2021-12-15T21:29:55+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2021/12/08/innovation-averse-law-schools-risk-missing-out-on-the-legal-industrys-regulatory-renaissance/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[“If law professors and legal educators and law school administrators aren't in tune with how the practice of law is changing, not just in terms of how you deliver legal services, but these new areas that are emerging, then we're doing a great disservice to our students," said April Dawson, associate dean of Technology and Innovation at North Carolina Central University School of Law, during the "Redesigning Legal" speaker series panel discussion this week.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>jf schools innovation regulation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:731a372597dd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:jf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:schools"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.suffolk.edu/law/academics-clinics/juris-doctor/hybrid-online-jd">
    <title>Hybrid Online JD - Suffolk University</title>
    <dc:date>2021-10-14T20:56:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.suffolk.edu/law/academics-clinics/juris-doctor/hybrid-online-jd</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><dc:subject>school innovation remote</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:b8bd1372ef6a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:school"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:remote"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/legalzoom-gets-green-light-for-arizona-non-lawyer-owned-services">
    <title>LegalZoom Gets Green Light for Arizona Non-Lawyer Owned Services</title>
    <dc:date>2021-10-04T14:18:52+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/legalzoom-gets-green-light-for-arizona-non-lawyer-owned-services</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A LegalZoom.com Inc. unit can give law advice in Arizona, the state said as it advances an effort to back non-lawyer-owned legal companies.

The Arizona Supreme Court approval means LZ Legal Services can hire attorneys as employees rather than rely solely on an independent network of lawyers who contracted with the company.

LegalZoom, which went public in late June, becomes the largest company, and at least the ninth overall, approved for the Arizona program that began last year with the goal of making legal services more accessible to low- and middle-income consumers.

“These reform efforts create opportunities to bring innovative new solutions to market,” LegalZoom General Counsel Nicole Miller said in a Friday statement. “We encourage other states to pursue similar reforms.”

Companies previously approved for ABS licenses in Arizona include Trajan Estate LLC, an estate planning law firm co-owned by a non-attorney fiduciary adviser, and some similar-sized operations.]]></description>
<dc:subject>abs innovation access regulation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:fc1f8ee427ff/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/10/01/legalzoom-gets-green-light-to-hire-attorneys-in-arizona/?kw=LegalZoom%2520Gets%2520Green%2520Light%2520to%2520Hire%2520Attorneys%2520in%2520Arizona">
    <title>LegalZoom Gets Green Light to Hire Attorneys in Arizona | Legaltech News</title>
    <dc:date>2021-10-04T14:06:01+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/10/01/legalzoom-gets-green-light-to-hire-attorneys-in-arizona/?kw=LegalZoom%2520Gets%2520Green%2520Light%2520to%2520Hire%2520Attorneys%2520in%2520Arizona</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Consumer-facing online legal services platform LegalZoom, which went public in June at a valuation of $7 billion, has received approval from the Arizona Supreme Court for an alternative business structure license in the state.

The approval makes LegalZoom the most recognizable business to secure a license since the state did away with prohibitions on fee sharing and outside ownership of law firms at the start of 2021. It will allow the company to employ lawyers alongside its suite of online offerings.

“This is an exciting milestone for our company and those we will be able to serve in new ways,” LegalZoom CEO Daniel Wernikoff said in a statement. “We intend to continue advancing our mission to democratize law by deeply integrating attorney expertise and support with LegalZoom’s technology, process efficiencies, and commitment to providing affordable access to legal services.”

The Arizona Supreme Court currently lists eight entities that have been approved for ABS licenses, but the list is dominated by small, Arizona-based firms taking advantage via business partnerships with tax or accounting professionals.]]></description>
<dc:subject>abs innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:f0be3011f340/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/scotland-mulls-single-regulator-for-all-lawyers">
    <title>Scotland mulls single regulator for all lawyers - Legal Futures</title>
    <dc:date>2021-10-04T14:04:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/scotland-mulls-single-regulator-for-all-lawyers</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[The possibility of a single regulator for all lawyers in Scotland – and the title of ‘lawyer’ having statutory protection – is being canvassed by the Scottish government.

It is also moving towards allowing alternative business structures (ABSs) in Scotland.

A consultation launched last week builds on the 2018 Roberton review and puts forward three potential models for the regulation of Scottish lawyers.

The first would see all legal professionals regulated by a new independent body that was accountable to the Scottish Parliament.

The second would effectively copy the regulatory set-up in England and Wales, with a ‘market’ regulator, again accountable to the Scottish Parliament, overseeing independent regulators of the different parts of the profession.]]></description>
<dc:subject>regulation innovation governance abs</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:fe676cbe30d0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:governance"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.lawtechuk.io/explore">
    <title>Explore and Learn - LawtechUK Hub</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-27T14:48:48+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.lawtechuk.io/explore</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><dc:subject>regulation innovation competence it future odr sandbox remote courts</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:2476bfa75523/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:it"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:future"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:odr"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:sandbox"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:remote"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:courts"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/mishcon-de-reya-to-list-and-more-firms-are-set-to-follow">
    <title>Mishcon de Reya to list - and more firms are set to follow - Legal Futures</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-15T19:58:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/mishcon-de-reya-to-list-and-more-firms-are-set-to-follow</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Partners at London law firm Mishcon de Reya have voted to press ahead with a premium listing on the London Stock Exchange, with experts predicting more to follow.

Significantly more than the required 75% of partners voted for the move, which will make it only the second firm after DWF to list on the main exchange rather than AIM, where the others law firms are.

The firm announced in April that it was investigating the long-rumoured move – with a view to accelerating its expansion – but in the wake of the vote to proceed provided no more detail yesterday on when the float might happen or what value would be attributed to the practice.

Around 28% of the business is likely to be floated and every member of its 1,000-strong staff will become a shareholder.]]></description>
<dc:subject>abs innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:078f87f0e64c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/coronavirus-pandemic-ventilation-rethinking-air/620000/">
    <title>Coronavirus Ventilation: A New Way to Think About Air - The Atlantic</title>
    <dc:date>2021-09-15T16:29:12+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/coronavirus-pandemic-ventilation-rethinking-air/620000/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[In their Science editorial, Morawska and her co-authors wrote, “While the scale of the changes required is enormous, this is not beyond the capabilities of our society, as has been shown in relation to food and waterborne disease, which have largely been controlled and monitored.” Morawska is optimistic, which perhaps you have to be to embark on this endeavor. The changes might take too long to matter for this current pandemic, but there are other viruses that spread through the air, and there will be more pandemics. “My whole drive is to do something for the future,” she told me.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation pandemic</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:b3d47883ee6b/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:pandemic"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/08/03/hybrid-arbitrations-how-to-avoid-procedural-pitfalls/?kw=Hybrid%2520Arbitrations%3A%2520How%2520to%2520Avoid%2520Procedural%2520Pitfalls">
    <title>Hybrid Arbitrations: How to Avoid Procedural Pitfalls | Legaltech News</title>
    <dc:date>2021-08-04T17:42:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/08/03/hybrid-arbitrations-how-to-avoid-procedural-pitfalls/?kw=Hybrid%2520Arbitrations%3A%2520How%2520to%2520Avoid%2520Procedural%2520Pitfalls</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Hybrid arbitrations are here to stay no matter what rules are adopted for remote civil cases decided by the courts. Hybrid arbitrations can save participants both time and money. Planning and communicating with the arbitration case administrator can help you avoid disruptions and allow you to concentrate on presenting your best case.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>arbitration pandemic innovation courts</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:e855d6d8c7b9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:arbitration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:pandemic"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:courts"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://stephenmayson.com/2021/07/26/is-the-biglaw-business-model-sustainable/">
    <title>Is the BigLaw business model sustainable? | StephenMayson</title>
    <dc:date>2021-08-03T18:11:23+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://stephenmayson.com/2021/07/26/is-the-biglaw-business-model-sustainable/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[A full range of capitalisation options would consider debt and equity, both internal and external, whether wholly or partially private or public, and both short-term and long-term (typically matching short-, medium- and long-term financing to, respectively, short-, medium- and long-term financial obligations).

It is of particular concern when lawyer regulation constrains the financing choices open to law firms, denying them ‘normal commercial’ options. This self-imposed constraint often derives from a misguided and unevidenced belief that ‘non-lawyers’ will interfere with lawyers’ professional obligations.

Alternatively, it is derived from an equally misguided notion that “we are a profession, not a business”, as though that is an either-or choice. Lawyers sell their services: that is a business. Yes, it is one subject to particular and additional obligations and commitments, especially to the rule of law, the courts and to professional independence. But this just means that law is a profession and a business, and the relevant aspects of the latter need to be incorporated rather than dismissed.

Conclusion
Too often in law firms – large and small – one finds fragile and fleeting coalitions of interests, driven by short-term individualised incentives and internal competition. Far from the elements of these firms’ business models being aligned, only rarely (if ever) have they even been considered, either separately or collectively. There is no, or insufficient, focus on value for the client; too much dependence on lawyer input; returns disproportionately assessed and appropriated by ‘net profit per equity partner’; and over-reliance on external debt.]]></description>
<dc:subject>business model firms innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:5223487a973a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:business"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:model"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:firms"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2021/07/diy-platform-hello-divorce-raises-2m-to-fuel-national-expansion.html">
    <title>DIY Platform 'Hello Divorce' Raises $2M To Fuel National Expansion | LawSites</title>
    <dc:date>2021-08-03T18:06:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.lawsitesblog.com/2021/07/diy-platform-hello-divorce-raises-2m-to-fuel-national-expansion.html</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Hello Divorce, a California startup whose platform facilitates low-cost do-it-yourself and attorney-assisted divorces, has raised a seed investment of $2 million to help fuel its expansion to all 50 states.

The investment was led by CEAS Investments, a single-family office that specializes in long-term investments in disruptive technologies.

Other investors included Jack Newton, cofounder and CEO of law practice management company Clio; Lightbank; Northwestern Mutual Future Ventures; Gaingels, a network of LGBT investors; Lisa Stone, WestRiver Group managing director and former founder and CEO of BlogHer; and EquityESQ, led by San Diego lawyer and investor Ed Diab.

This is the company’s first time raising outside funding, founder and CEO Erin Levine told me in a recent interview. She bootstrapped development of the initial platform and was able to fund early growth and development through the company’s own revenue.


Founder Erin Levine
“That put us in a unique position raising at the seed round in that we were already profitable and revenue generating,” Levine said. “We were already growing at a pretty good clip.”]]></description>
<dc:subject>family access startup innovation competition</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:64704534559e/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:family"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:startup"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competition"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://msmagazine.com/2021/07/23/immigration-court-lawyer-viista-help-migrants-become-an-accredited-representative/">
    <title>Meet VIISTA: The Program Training Non-Lawyers to Represent Migrants in Court - Ms. Magazine</title>
    <dc:date>2021-08-03T17:47:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://msmagazine.com/2021/07/23/immigration-court-lawyer-viista-help-migrants-become-an-accredited-representative/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Every time I went into immigration court, I was so frustrated because I saw how many people didn’t have a lawyer, including children,” said Michele Pistone, a law professor at Villanova University. “When you see that enough times you start thinking, okay, the problem is that the system is broken, and we need to come up with a better solution,” she said. And Pistone did exactly that. 

Pistone designed and founded an entirely online educational program called Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates (VIISTA). The program is designed to meet the demand for immigrant representatives by taking advantage of a long-standing facet of immigration law that allows non-lawyers approved by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to represent migrants in immigration court. Called “accredited representatives,” these non-lawyers work at DOJ recognized organizations—such as faith-based or immigrant advocacy groups—who are permitted to provide low-cost legal representation to migrants under federal regulations.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>paraprofessionals access innovation regulation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:221d5e461b7c/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:paraprofessionals"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-calls-for-state-to-withdraw-from-the-uniform-bar-exam/">
    <title>New York State Bar Association Calls for State To Withdraw From the Uniform Bar Exam - New York State Bar Association</title>
    <dc:date>2021-07-28T16:54:59+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-calls-for-state-to-withdraw-from-the-uniform-bar-exam/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[“The UBE places a premium on subject matter that new lawyers do not use,” said former Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department, Alan D. Scheinkman, who chaired the task force. “As a result, law schools teach students material that they won’t need while failing to spend time on the issues young lawyers will encounter in their early years of practice.”

The report also recommends providing two alternative means to admissions:

A pathway through concentrated study of New York law while in law school
A pathway through supervised practice of law in New York combined with law school achievements]]></description>
<dc:subject>licensing admission regulation innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:1c5a3827c9a9/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:licensing"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:admission"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/06/30/legalzoom-hits-nasdaq-with-more-than-19-million-shares-at-28-a-share/">
    <title>LegalZoom Hits Nasdaq With More Than 19 Million Shares at $28 a Share | Legaltech News</title>
    <dc:date>2021-07-26T20:36:21+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/06/30/legalzoom-hits-nasdaq-with-more-than-19-million-shares-at-28-a-share/</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[LegalZoom CEO Dan Wernikoff rang the opening bell at the Nasdaq Global Market this morning to celebrate the platform officially going public. The news comes just weeks after the company filed its intent to go public with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this month. 

According to a press release published to the company’s website yesterday, LegalZoom’s initial public offering is an aggregate of 19,121,000 shares that will be priced at $28 per share. The stock will be visible on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol LZ.

“Our mission of Democratizing Law has been a constant from day one. Our goal is to level the playing field for small businesses by making the law accessible with simple and affordable services. At business formation, small businesses are looking for a lot more than just legal help. We’re excited to help remove roadblocks that get in their way, legal or otherwise,” Wernikoff said in a statement released before this morning’s festivities. 

Operating firmly in the DIY legal services niche, LegalZoom allows users to generate documents like wills or business formation papers without any outside intervention from an attorney. The market for those types of consumer-facing entities may only continue to grow as states like Utah and Arizona continue to loosen restrictions around who can offer legal services or own law firms. 

Zach Abramowitz of Killer Whale Strategies previously told Legaltech News that LegalZoom is “a very recognizable brand.” 

“I think LegalZoom has always been on the consumer side, and I think that’s a massive market,” he said. ]]></description>
<dc:subject>competitors access innovation</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:365389becbb0/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:competitors"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:access"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fa337150-9cdc-41ff-b475-343bf2365c5e">
    <title>The ABC of ABSs (alternative business structures) - Lexology</title>
    <dc:date>2021-07-26T16:51:46+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fa337150-9cdc-41ff-b475-343bf2365c5e</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[There has been no shortage of ABS applications and granting of licences. Some 1100+ ABSs exist.

So long as the indemnity insurance market does not prevent ongoing innovation, we see the future for ABSs as strong.

The flexibility has been adopted with caution and is working within a strong legal service sector, every week here at JBL we receive calls by innovators looking to set up new ABSs. Some along traditional practice lines but with a non lawyer owner involved, some looking to innovate legal services and change the delivery for the benefit of potential clients and the profession.]]></description>
<dc:subject>innovation abs</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:3b83d869993f/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/indiana-still-resistant-to-nonlawyer-firm-ownership?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_56b5b863e783f5accd29d1dd741e664e6b6ba2a3-1626964865-0-gqNtZGzNAiKjcnBszQx6">
    <title>Indiana still resistant to nonlawyer firm ownership - The Indiana Lawyer</title>
    <dc:date>2021-07-22T14:41:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/indiana-still-resistant-to-nonlawyer-firm-ownership?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_56b5b863e783f5accd29d1dd741e664e6b6ba2a3-1626964865-0-gqNtZGzNAiKjcnBszQx6</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Also, DeMeola pointed to Washington, D.C., which he said has had no crisis of independent judgment even though the legal community there has been operating under a modified Rule 5.4 for years. In addition, he said neither the United Kingdom nor Australia, which relaxed their ownership regulations in 2007 and 2001, respectively, have recorded any increase in attorney discipline complaints.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>regulation innovation abs</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:9150e5f09334/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:abs"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://stephenmayson.com/2021/07/19/regulation-from-infection-to-inflection-point/#more-4057">
    <title>Regulation: from infection to inflection point | StephenMayson</title>
    <dc:date>2021-07-21T19:48:22+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://stephenmayson.com/2021/07/19/regulation-from-infection-to-inflection-point/#more-4057</link>
    <dc:creator>JordanFurlong</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[As Jordan points out, awareness and capacity on the consumer side of the dam is limited (often including relatively sophisticated clients, too): “We have conditioned the legal market to a very low level of expectation…. We have set the bar so low in terms of expectations for the legal system that people don’t realise they should and can demand more”. There is definitely scope to meet the increasing and largely unmet legal needs of the citizens in all developed economies that the organised and regulated legal professions seem content to ignore or under-value as a market for their services.

Earlier in the episode, Jordan touches on a thread that, in essence, asks ‘What is the purpose of Law?’ and hopes that we can somehow reconnect the regulation of legal services with this purpose. It prompted me to re-read another lecture that I gave in 2013, and much still resonated. To make this reconnection, we have to focus on regulating legal services, not lawyers. And we then have to focus on the interests of those who are served (clients and society), not those who are serving (providers). It is this conflict of interests that means that self-regulation is ultimately doomed.

We also need to adopt a broader notion of competence in the provision of services. Not surprisingly, self-regulation tends to emphasise competence in the law. As I said in the 2013 lecture:

]]></description>
<dc:subject>jf innovation regulation governance</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/b:bb3ab8dca55a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:jf"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:innovation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:regulation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:JordanFurlong/t:governance"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>